Full-Scale Measurements of Translational and Torsional Dynamics Characteristics of a High-Rise Building during Typhoon Sarika
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled " Full-scale measurements of translational and torsional dynamics characteristics of a high-rise building during Typhoon Sarika” presented study on high rise building. The influence of different parameters on high rise building was studied and analyzed. The manuscript lacks clarity and needs much improvement before further processing. This reviewer recommends minor editing and resubmits for re-review.
Comments:
- The authors should provide detail report on the existing studies on different high strength concrete as mostly high strength concrete is used in high rise buildings. For instance, author can look to the following articles.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090447921001830
- Predicting the compressive strength of concrete with fly ash admixture using machine learning algorithms
- Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using individual and ensemble algorithm
- The English writing of the manuscript needs improvement. Therefore, it could benefit greatly from professional editing to improve technical writing and English.
- In References, the sources are written in different styles. It is necessary to bring in accordance with the requirements of the magazine for the design of References. If possible, indicate DOI.
- In the introduction, when formulating the problem and research objectives, it would not be superfluous to give the Ishikawa causal diagram with an analysis of the causes and factors of material degradation during freezing and thawing. This will strengthen the analytical content of the article and attract the attention of readers.
- The Conclusions should reflect what the practical application of the results obtained in this study is. For example, what types of macadams and roads can be improved using the research results? In what climatic conditions should the recommendations of the authors be taken into account?
- The authors should increase their discussion on previous related research and highlight how their study is providing a different approach or adding significantly to what has been done.
- The title of the manuscript should be revised. It contains so many hyphens.
- Some types of standards should be used to perform different experimental studies. Please provide details for the standards used in each study.
- Section 4 should be discussed in detail.
- The authors must redo the Abstract and bring it in compliance with the requirements of the Materials journal. The scientific problem is poorly described (Background). The scientific novelty is not indicated. I recommend shortening the Abstract to 200 words. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article
- It is advisable to add a flowchart at the beginning of the paper. Then the article would become more visual and structured
- Figure 4 is of poor quality. Replace, if possible, please
- The Conclusion section must be revised in accordance with the comments above.
Author Response
Comment:The manuscript entitled " Full-scale measurements of translational and torsional dynamics characteristics of a high-rise building during Typhoon Sarika” presented study on high rise building. The influence of different parameters on high rise building was studied and analyzed. The manuscript lacks clarity and needs much improvement before further processing. This reviewer recommends minor editing and resubmits for re-review.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The comments have been studied carefully and the corresponding changes have been made. We have checked the spell-check and review of English phrasing one by one to improve the manuscript.
Comment:The authors should provide detail report on the existing studies on different high strength concrete as mostly high strength concrete is used in high rise buildings. For instance, author can look to the following articles.
Predicting the compressive strength of concrete with fly ash admixture using machine learning algorithms
Prediction of compressive strength of fly ash based concrete using individual and ensemble algorithm
Response: Thank you for the comment. The above paper review comments seem to be irrelevant to the research content in the manuscript.
Comment:The English writing of the manuscript needs improvement. Therefore, it could benefit greatly from professional editing to improve technical writing and English.
Response: Thank you for the comment and careful check. We have checked the typological errors carefully and corrected them one by one to improve our manuscript.
Comment:In References, the sources are written in different styles. It is necessary to bring in accordance with the requirements of the magazine for the design of References. If possible, indicate DOI.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The above paper review comments seem to be irrelevant to the research content in the manuscript.
Comment:In the introduction, when formulating the problem and research objectives, it would not be superfluous to give the Ishikawa causal diagram with an analysis of the causes and factors of material degradation during freezing and thawing. This will strengthen the analytical content of the article and attract the attention of readers.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The above paper review comments seem to be irrelevant to the research content in the manuscript.
Comment:The Conclusions should reflect what the practical application of the results obtained in this study is. For example, what types of macadams and roads can be improved using the research results? In what climatic conditions should the recommendations of the authors be taken into account?
Response: Thank you for the comment. The above paper review comments seem to be irrelevant to the research content in the manuscript.
Comment:The authors should increase their discussion on previous related research and highlight how their study is providing a different approach or adding significantly to what has been done.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have made some amendments in the manuscript
Comment:The title of the manuscript should be revised. It contains so many hyphens.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The above paper review comments seem to be irrelevant to the research content in the manuscript.
Comment:Some types of standards should be used to perform different experimental studies. Please provide details for the standards used in each study.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Comment:Section 4 should be discussed in detail.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Comment:The authors must redo the Abstract and bring it in compliance with the requirements of the Materials journal. The scientific problem is poorly described (Background). The scientific novelty is not indicated. I recommend shortening the Abstract to 200 words. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Briefly describe the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Comment:It is advisable to add a flowchart at the beginning of the paper. Then the article would become more visual and structured
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Comment:Figure 4 is of poor quality. Replace, if possible, please
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Comment:The Conclusion section must be revised in accordance with the comments above.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We carefully examine the paper and revise where we can.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All my comments are included in the attached file with paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment: All my comments are included in the attached file with paper.
Response: Thank you for the comment. The comments have been studied carefully and the corresponding changes have been made. We have checked the spell-check and review of English phrasing one by one to improve the manuscript. See the attachment for detailed modification reply
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments are addressed. The paper can be accepted in its present form.
Author Response
Comment:All comments are addressed. The paper can be accepted in its present form.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful in revising and improving the paper, as well as in providing guidance significance to the researches.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments are included in the attached file. Please, read this carefully again.
Explain the difference between research made in the publication listed as 1st in references and your paper. Both papers have many common parts and figures.
Author Response
Comment:My comments are included in the attached file. Please, read this carefully again.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have carefully studied your comments and replied to them one by one in the the attached file, and revised in the manuscript in a revision mode.
Comment: Explain the difference between research made in the publication listed as 1st in references and your paper. Both papers have many common parts and figures.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have monitored more than five typhoons in the same high-rise building for many years, and measured the wind-induced response data of high-rise buildings simultaneously each time. Reference 1 is the measured data of high-rise buildings under the action of typhoon Kalmaegi, only the horizontal wind-induced response data of high-rise buildings are monitored in the measured process. The wind-induced response of high-rise buildings includes not only horizontal wind-induced response data, but also torsional wind-induced response data. Therefore, in the field measurement and research of wind-induced response of high-rise buildings under the action of typhoon Sarika in this paper, the horizontal and torsional wind-induced data are tested simultaneously, which supplements the deficiency of torsional wind-induced response measured data, and can provide valuable research data for torsional wind resistance.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking the effort and accepting most of my comments. I wish you successful research in the field presented in the future.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
