Laser Scanning and Ambient Vibration Study of Juma Mosque in Khiva (Uzbekistan) with Subsequent Finite Element Modeling of Its Minaret

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This research study presents the results of digital twin generation from a Mosque in Uzbekistan. Although in this work, the physical properties of the structure are considered in the digital twin generation,which could be helpful for researches in this field, some major technical concerns are remained, that need to be addressed in the next revision.

 Technical considerations:

1-   The Introduction Section of the manuscript does not refer to the many scientific papers in this field. The manuscript does not appropriately discuss the related papers and applications of TLS in the literature which is crucial to clarify their research objective\questions. So the authors must add a literature review Section to the manuscript extensively discussing similar papers with different applications of TLS in digital twin.

 Some highly related papers in this field are provided. Please discuss them in your manuscript.

*Title: A Decade of Modern Bridge Monitoring Using Terrestrial Laser Scanning: Review and Future Directions,2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12223796

*Title: Application of TLS Method in Digitization of Bridge Infrastructures: A Path to BrIM Development 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14051148

 2-    In Section2.1, the authors need to clarify the distribution of targets used for point cloud registration. The accuracy of point cloud registration is not clear.

 3-   In Section2.1, the authors used a special local coordinate system with orientation adjustment. The reason why the authors need to define such a local coordinate system is not clear.

 4-   In Section2.1, the process of unwrapping the outer surface of the minaret is not clear. Why did you use such method to find the exact location of the window? How the unwrapping process was performed on the point cloud?

 5-   In Section3, why the authors used manual measurements for the monument? Why TLS is not used for the spiral staircase? Do the authors believe that manual measurements of the stairs are enough accurate\precise for the digital twin? I don’t think so.

 6-   In Section4, how did the authors measured the best fit circles? Which software did you use? What are the section distances in Fig12(b)?

 7-   The authors need to extent their Evaluations in the manuscript to justify their results and conclusions from the point cloud analysis. The results of cross section circles are not adequate. I suggest the authors to extend their evaluations with the respect to the analysis performed in the following papers:

*Title: The performance evaluation of multi-image 3D reconstruction software with different sensors,2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2018.01.058

 8-   The structure of the data processing and analysis is not clear. The authors need to add a flowchart to clarify the processing steps.

 9-   In Section5, in page9, the authors did a vibration study for the minaret. However, there are no evidence in the manuscript justifying why this kind of analysis is suitable to enhance the accuracy of their digital twin and FEM model. It should be clarified in the text.

  10-              In Section5 in Page 9(Ambient vibration study) has the same Section number with Finite element modelling in Page11.

 11-              Figure 15(b) the bottom view of the stairs is not clear.

 Editorial considerations:

The manuscript needs to be extensively reviewed for grammatical and spelling mistakes.

  Minor considerations:

1-      Some tables are not necessary and could be removed.

2-      The format of references should be revised. Especially the references which are not scientific papers.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent on reviewing the paper and the comments aiming at improving the quality of the paper. Please find our responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- Could you please explain more about the advantage of configuration 2 over other configurations?

- What is your numerical platform to do the simulations? Does it require long-term processing time? How can you make a live digital twin?

- It is not a bad idea to give an estimation of the structural response by your digital twins in the prediction of new scenarios like severe vibrations.

- What are your suggestions for better preservation of the monument by digital twins? (in the conclusion section)

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent on reviewing the paper and the comments aiming at improving the quality of the paper. Please find our responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find more information in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent on reviewing the paper and the comments aiming at improving the quality of the paper. Please find our responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting and empirical work is evident but the paper reads like a descriptive report of the laser scanning process and technologies used. The reader is left wondering what is the rationale for doing this research? The authors need to clarify the research problem, aim and objectives, positioning within the literature, and contribution of this research. What is the impact of this research to theory, practice, society, policy making etc.?

Literature review is insufficient. Deeper engagement with up to date academic literature, in particular journal papers is needed. The paper should also engage with recent discussions in 'Remote Sensing' to justify publication in this journal. 

The conclusions simply summarise the process again. Digital twins were mentioned earlier in the paper but there's no sufficient discussion of how the application of digital twins is useful. In addition, findings of this study should be compared and contrasted with earlier studies discussed in the literature review to clarify the contribution of this research. The limitations of this research are not considered, they should be discussed in the conclusions as well areas for further research in a more meaningful way.

The paper needs to be re-written before it can be considered for publication. Major revisions are needed to clearly articulate the significance and novelty of this research from the outset and clarify the main argument of this paper. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time spent on reviewing the paper and the comments aiming at improving the quality of the paper. Please find our responses attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is in a better state now. But there are still some comments that need to be addressed in the next revision. In some important comments, the authors did not do anything to clarify the research design/results, instead they changed some sentences in the paper which is not helpful. It is suggested that the authors allocate more time to do the comments.

1-   The Background of research is added to paper but there is no section named literature review (it should be named as Section2). However, the section is too brief and needs to be extended. In addition, the objective of the paper is not yet clear regarding the literature.

 2-   The advantages process of unwrapping the outer surface of the minaret is not clearly discussed. I cannot still understand your explanations and the necessity of unwrapping process. please clarify with more explanations.

3-   The method used by authors to measure the best fit circles should be clarified. How did you fit the circle? how did you chose the point cloud to fit the circles?

 4-   The authors need to extent their Evaluations in the manuscript to justify their results and conclusions from the point cloud analysis. It cannot be considered in the next phase of study because it completely affects your outcomes.

 5-   The structure of the data processing should be cleared by a flowchart. Not just a sentence and a reference!

6-   There is still no evidence in the manuscript justifying why vibration analysis is suitable to enhance the accuracy of their digital twin and FEM model. It should be clarified by references of similar studies. in addition, in the literature review, you should discuss similar studies in this field. but in your literature, there are no related paper.

7-   Figure 15(b), change the picture and use a better one.

8-In comment 5, I believe manual measurement of stairs is not accurate for FEM. As your figures shows, the stairs shapes are complex and you have no explanation for not using TLS for indoor stairs. (just move it to the next phase of the project?)

Author Response

The authors would like to express their appreciation for reviewing the paper. he responses are provided in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has improved.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their appreciation for reviewing the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx