Structure-to-Human Interaction (H2SI): Pedestrian Response to Oscillating Footbridges and Considerations on Their Structural Control and Health Monitoring

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, a state of the art about the importance of considering the human-structure interaction model in the design of bridge structures is presented. The manuscript is well written and organized and it is easy to read and understand. However, a clear lack of novelty is detected in this manuscript. This topic, the human structure interaction is a well-known and extensively studied problem (specially during the last 20 years) so it is really complicated to write a review paper about the topics. According to the reviewer, a lot of important contributions have been omitted and there are recent papers that reflect the same idea described in this paper. An example of similar contributions:

(i)                       Shahabpoor E, Pavic A, Racic V (2017) Structural vibration serviceability: New design framework featuring human-structure interaction. Engineering Structures, 136: 295-311.

(ii)                    Jimenez-Alonso JF, Saez A (2018) Recent Advances in the Serviceability Assessment of Footbridges Under Pedestrian-Induced Vibrations In book: Bridge Engineering

(iii)                  Van Nimmen K, Lombaert G, De Roeck G, Van den Broeck P (2017) The impact of vertical human-structure interaction on the response of footbridges to pedestrian excitation. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 402: 104-121.

No additional information has been included in this manuscript in comparison with previous contributions (the main focused on the period between 2015 and 2020). Additionally, the last trends, either the consideration of the variability of the parameters (intra and inter-subject) via the use of spectral methods or the use of the multi-agent models to improve the performance of simplified model, has not been included in this manuscript.

For this reason, although the paper is well-written and organized, this reviewer cannot considered this paper for publication due to its lack of novelty.

Author Response

Please find our point-by-point reply to your constructive comments and suggestions in the attached pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the minor comments are listed in attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find our point-by-point reply to your constructive comments and suggestions in the attached pdf.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf