Validation of One Predominant Frequency Presence in Seismic Ground Displacement by Means of Deformation Response Spectra
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please check the following suggestions：
1. Please list the seismic equations of motion under the first paragraph of the Introduction.
2. A large amount of unreasonable italic formatting exists in the article, please correct it.
3. For the formulas listed in the paper, if they are not derived from this article but are cited, the source of the formulas must be marked, otherwise there is suspicion of plagiarism.
4. There are issues with article segmentation, especially in Part 3, please add the secondary title to separate the paragraphs.
5. The data in the fifth example does not indicate which plots are shown, please add annotations.
6. In the third part of the article, the image position is incorrect, please correct it.
7. The research process and conclusions seem to be superficial and no in-depth theoretical study is proposed, which has certain limitations
8. The format of references should be unified., please correct it.
Author Response
First of all, thanks to the reviewer for a fine work; the changes according to the suggestions are highlighted in yellow for reviewer 1.
1. The equation of motion has been written at the end of paragraph (par.) 1, as indicated, it is highlighted in yellow, page 1
2. The italics (most of them) were eliminated; these changes are many and are highlighted (yellow); as example only, take page 5, where 3 of these changes are shown (yellow)
3. The source of the formulas are indicated in brackets; there are 2 cases in which the derivation is ours; however, it was too simple so it is not necessary to write the derivation step by step, which is common in these cases of simplicity, for journal level; nevertheless, it is indicated so in the revised manuscript (pages 5 and 6, yellow)
4. Part 3 has been divided in two subsections, 3.1 and 3.2
5. The figures numbers (12 and 13) have been added in page 10 (highlighted)
6. Figs. 8 and 9 have been moved, or the location enhanced as suggested; however, the rest were not because all these figures must go in pairs (psd and response spectra); we will let the editorial team position all figures in the final production stage
7. There is now a separate Conclusions section; the theoretical development is in pages 5 and 6, where it is shown the neat and clear relationship between ground displacement and structural deformation, which is a fact on which the research is based. Finally, there is a new par., purely on limitations of the study, it is the second par. of the new section 5
8. The format of the references has been unified, fully; all these changes are highlighted in yellow in the last page.
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author presented a stud on validation of one predominant frequency presence in seismic ground displacement by means of deformation response spectra. IN general, the manuscript is well-written and well presented. However, I have some minor comments which are to addressed before acceptance.
1. Introduction: Beginning is quite abrupt, change it as: In earthquake engineering, ….
2. Research gaps are not properly stated.
3. The hypothesis of this investigation is not clear. Should be elaborated. In general, two hypotheses are formed (Null and alternative) initially and then one should be rejected. So, plz clarify in detail.
4. The employed dataset is quite small. Need incorporation of more dataset.
5. Result part should be elaborated. Comparison should be shown between theoretical and obtained results.
6. Fig. 4: Power spectral density of Kern County..: Much fluctuations have been observed. Plz clarify. The same comment Fig.5, but strong statements should be provided to justify Figs. 4 and 5.
7. Separate discussion and conclusion part.
8. The conclusion section is not properly written. Plz state the major findings of the study and limitations. Also, discuss the future scope of the study.
9. The dominance of critical frequency in PSD results should be clarified.
10. In the introduction, the author indicates that clearer seismic predominant frequencies are possible if one studies the most basic motion quantity:.. This statement should be justify in the context of the findings of the present study.
11. Novel not clearly stated.
12. Do no use the term ‘paper’, Use study or research throughout the manuscript.
13. Data availability: Plz provide the source here.
14. Check the following para how to apply grammatical correction: Use the past tense to report what happened in the past: what the authors did, what someone reported, what happened in an experiment, and so on. Use the present tense to express general truths, such as conclusions (drawn by the authors or by others) and facts not limited by time (including information about what the paper does or covers). Reserve the future tense for perspectives: what will be done in the coming months or years.
Minor changes are required.
Author Response
First of all, thanks to the reviewer for a fine work; the changes according to the comments are highlighted in green for reviewer 2.
1. The change suggested has been done (highlighted in green)
2. The main research gap is now (revised paper) in page 2, highlighted in green
3. The original hypothesis has been explained better, these enhancements to the hypothesis and additions are in pages 4 and 5 (highlighted)
4. The original set of earthquakes included only events from the Americas, we have added earthquakes from Asia and Oceania now (see Table 1), these are quite recent and of magnitudes larger than 7.5 (Chi Chi, Taiwan; Kaikoura, New Zealand).
5. There are input and output spectra results (it cannot be stated that any is more theoretical, both are obtained from seismic records); these two spectra are compared; according to the reviewer comment, these comparison is explained better in page 7, indicating that the important ec. is Eq. 7 (these enhancements are highlighted in green)
6. The reviewer is right in that the spectra are not fully narrowband, there are secondary predominant frequencies in some cases; however, Kern Co. is actually our best result; nonetheless, this has been clarified, highlighted in page 9. Moreover, a discussion on this point was (is) in section 4
7. There are now two sections, 4 and 5 (Discussion and Conclusion), as suggested
8. In the new Conclusion section, the main finding is explained (new, highlighted in green) in the first par.; and in the second par. the limitations and future work are written (also new)
9. The predominance of one frequency or narrowbandness in PSD is the subject of references [10] and [11]; in this study, that predominance is corroborated which is one of the main results; this is clarified in the first part of the new Section 5 (green highlight)
10. That statement is also written in the last par. of section 4; that is, after the positive results of the study; it has been added (in green) that the findings support that idea or statement
11. The novelties of the study have been explained better; these improvements can be observed in the Abstract, page 2 (research gap) and page 3, highlighted in green
12. All 'paper' instances have been deleted and replaced as suggested
13. The source of the data has been added (page 14, in green)
14. Verb tenses have been changed as suggested; just as examples, take page 3 where there are now 'was obtained' and 'would be' (in green)
Thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After the revision, the issues mentioned earlier have been resolved,, but there are still some problems that have not yet been revised. For example, the positions of some image are too far from the content described in the article and the research process and conclusions seem to be superficial and no in-depth theoretical study is proposed, which has certain limitations. It is suggested as revision for publication.
Author Response
Many thanks again for both reviewers. Since at this round of review there was only one reviewer with further comments (which we thank because the paper is enhanced) we will use one or an additional (third) color for the improvements according to the last suggestions and for clarity; this will be purple.
We have placed, now, Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13 much earlier on the paper; they are all now in section 3.1 (before section 3.2; the figures that have been moved are highlighted in purple, or their caption). Regarding the Conclusions, the original version had a ‘Discussion and Conclusion’ section (only one) whereas the new version has that old section separated in two; thus, the ‘Conclusion’ is new now and it is an enhancement to the paper as there is new material (highlighted in green). In regards to the theory, as we explained previously, the theoretical development on which the study is based is on pages 5 and 6, where it is demonstrated through Random Vibrations theory the clear and neat relationship between ground displacement and structural deformation. In other words, it is shown why one should employ displacement response spectra (instead of the common acceleration one) to corroborate previous spectral results on ground displacement. Nevertheless, future or further theoretical development is proposed in that section 5 (highlighted in purple). As any research work, this one has limitations; as a matter of fact, an enhancement to the original version was the addition or clarification of one limitation, which is highlighted in green in that section 5.
