A Methodology to Manage and Correlate Results of Non-Destructive and Destructive Tests on Ancient Timber Beams: The Case of Montorio Tower

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research significance of the paper is not very solid, it is well known that destructive testing is more accurate than NDT, because the principle of NDT is to carry out NDT by establishing interrelationships with the parameters measured by destructive testing, the research intention of the authors are asked to re-describe the research, for example, through a variety of non-destructive testing methods to build a multi-parameter evaluation of the accurate results of the method based on machine learning or deep learning, and related articles have been published recently.

Secondly, it is a suggestion to the authors, from the ancient building demolition and repair of wooden components can be carried out a lot of research in a wide range before the destructive test, such as the establishment of the relationship with the climatology, the age, the determination of the annual cycle, the rule of change of the mechanical properties and the service time, etc., with these valuable materials suggested that the authors to carry out more in-depth research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors were asked to rewrite the English through native English speaking specialist.

Author Response

Comments:

The research significance of the paper is not very solid, it is well known that destructive testing is more accurate than NDT, because the principle of NDT is to carry out NDT by establishing interrelationships with the parameters measured by destructive testing, the research intention of the authors are asked to re-describe the research, for example, through a variety of non-destructive testing methods to build a multi-parameter evaluation of the accurate results of the method based on machine learning or deep learning, and related articles have been published recently.

Secondly, it is a suggestion to the authors, from the ancient building demolition and repair of wooden components can be carried out a lot of research in a wide range before the destructive test, such as the establishment of the relationship with the climatology, the age, the determination of the annual cycle, the rule of change of the mechanical properties and the service time, etc., with these valuable materials suggested that the authors to carry out more in-depth research.

Reply:

Thank you for the comment. Authors agree that an evaluation based on machine learning or deep learning would introduce significant progress in the research. However, this approach goes beyond the objective of the activities performed and here presented, also considering the competences involved. This study is mainly aimed at sharing rare results of a comprehensive approach which includes DT and NDT on ancient elements, also seizing the opportunity to suggest a methodological path.

As far as additional assessments (e.g. relationship with climatology, age, determination of the annual cycle, etc.), they would require a new test campaign which unfortunately cannot be now included.

Certainly, authors will consider your suggestions for the future development of this research activity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present work is case study of the analysis of timber bars that had previously been extracted from a medieval monument. The authors conducted an experimental campaign where both NDT and mechanical testing co-existed. Overall is a work with a significance, an actual case study that merits the publication. However, some issues are detected. More precisely:

1. An extensive linguistic review is a must. Literally, the work has a lot of linguistic errors in syntax, vocabulary and grammar. In many sections of the work there is not even agreement between plural and singular. Then we find the use of the term "investigations" that, appart from the fact that is mainly used in singular, is not a proper term and should be substituted by evaluation, analysis etc.

2. Please find more appropriate titles for the sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 not using phrases with the term vs. in the title.

3. It is not clear how the ultrasound inspection was conducted. In section 2.2 lines 163-164 the authors stated that the ultrasound inspection enabled (reccommended to use it in the place of allowed) the calculation of the elastic properties that is a bit confusing with some techniques to calculate the elastic moduli of materials. If this is not the case, the authors should rephrase otherwise to clarify this point. In the same section, the frequency of the ultrasonic probe is missing. Moreover, the authors state that more information can be found in another publication. Considering that the journal is an NDT-based one, reporting the details of the NDT part is crucial.

4.The titles from the graphs (those above the graphs) in section 3 of the paper should be removed. Please use (a), (b) etc and report in the caption the appropriate information.

5. The authors should not use abbreviations and symbols in the graphs, this makes the paper less readable and less comprehensive. For instance, use Flexural Modulus instead of Ef. Also, the test is a 4-point bending test and not a generalized bending test (it can also be 3 point).

6. Please make more visible your graphs in Fig.6 etc. Also merge Fig.6 and Fig.7 into 1 with a) and b). Do the same revision in the whole manuscript where necessary.

For all these reasons, the paper needs a strong revision paying attention to details to make it presentable and more comprehensive. The information is there, the problem is focused on the writting-linguistic-symbolisms inside it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As stated in the comments, the manuscript needs a very strong linguistic review to avoid vocabulary-syntax-grammar errors.

Author Response

Comments

The present work is case study of the analysis of timber bars that had previously been extracted from a medieval monument. The authors conducted an experimental campaign where both NDT and mechanical testing co-existed. Overall is a work with a significance, an actual case study that merits the publication. However, some issues are detected. More precisely:

Comment 1:

An extensive linguistic review is a must. Literally, the work has a lot of linguistic errors in syntax, vocabulary and grammar. In many sections of the work there is not even agreement between plural and singular. Then we find the use of the term "investigations" that, appart from the fact that is mainly used in singular, is not a proper term and should be substituted by evaluation, analysis etc.

Reply 1:

We agree with this comment. The text has been carefully checked.   

Comment 2:

Please find more appropriate titles for the sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 not using phrases with the term vs. in the title.

Reply 2:

We agree with this comment. More appropriate titles for sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 have been proposed.    

Comment 3:

It is not clear how the ultrasound inspection was conducted. In section 2.2 lines 163-164 the authors stated that the ultrasound inspection enabled (reccommended to use it in the place of allowed) the calculation of the elastic properties that is a bit confusing with some techniques to calculate the elastic moduli of materials. If this is not the case, the authors should rephrase otherwise to clarify this point. In the same section, the frequency of the ultrasonic probe is missing. Moreover, the authors state that more information can be found in another publication. Considering that the journal is an NDT-based one, reporting the details of the NDT part is crucial.

Reply 3:

Authors thank you for the suggestions. Lines 163-164 (with reference to the previous submission) have been rephrased (see Lines 157-158 highlighted with color in the new submission). Moreover, many additional information on NDT have been included (see Lines 168-189 highlighted with color) 

Comment 4:

The titles from the graphs (those above the graphs) in section 3 of the paper should be removed. Please use (a), (b) etc and report in the caption the appropriate information.

Reply 4:

Authors thank you for the suggestion. Titles have been removed from the graphs in section 3. Graphs contained in Tables 8, 9 and 10 (according to the previous submission) have been converted into Figures 7-11, 13-15, 17-21 and appropriate information has been reported in the captions. 

Comment 5:

The authors should not use abbreviations and symbols in the graphs, this makes the paper less readable and less comprehensive. For instance, use Flexural Modulus instead of Ef.  Also, the test is a 4-point bending test and not a generalized bending test (it can also be 3 point).

Reply 5:

Authors thank you for the suggestions. Abbreviations and symbols in the graphs have been substituted with extensive descriptions. We clarified that bending test is a 4-point bending test (see Lines 20 and 220 highlighted with color).

 Comment 6:

Please make more visible your graphs in Fig.6 etc. Also merge Fig.6 and Fig.7 into 1 with a) and b). Do the same revision in the whole manuscript where necessary.For all these reasons, the paper needs a strong revision paying attention to details to make it presentable and more comprehensive. The information is there, the problem is focused on the writting-linguistic-symbolisms inside it.

Reply 6:

Authors agree with this comment. The paper has been revised according to your suggestions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discussed a case study for comparing DT and NDT at a tower of Montorio which made of from wood. Some questions raised during read and reviewed this article, such as:

1.      Title should in the form of abbreviation or complete sentence! NDT and ND or non-destructive test and destructive test.

2.      In abstract should follow the order of the title, NDT first and then DT. Make consistent! You decide! Which one is the first!

3.       After reading carefully of this article, the sample of the research was not sufficient in term of:

-        Number of the samples. They were only six beams. They could not represent of the Montorio tower even though the authors mentioned they were parts of the floor!

-        Position or origin of the samples. They derived from floor part. In this manuscript it was not clear, whether the floor was in the base or not. Did the floor receive any loadings? This is missing in the manuscript.

-        Species of the wood beam was not known. It was weird. Anatomical identification should help.

4.      Therefore, I reject this manuscript to publish in NDT Journal of MDPI.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The manuscript discussed a case study for comparing DT and NDT at a tower of Montorio which made of from wood. Some questions raised during read and reviewed this article, such as:

Title should in the form of abbreviation or complete sentence! NDT and ND or non-destructive test and destructive test.

Reply 1:

Authors thank you for the suggestion. Title has been modified.   

Comment 2:

In abstract should follow the order of the title, NDT first and then DT. Make consistent! You decide! Which one is the first!

Reply 2:

Authors thank you for the suggestion. The title and the abstract are now consistent: the title has been modified.  

Comment 3:

After reading carefully of this article, the sample of the research was not sufficient in term of:

• • -  Number of the samples. They were only six beams. They could not represent of the Montorio tower even though the authors mentioned they were parts of the floor!
  • -  Position or origin of the samples. They derived from floor part. In this manuscript it was not clear, whether the floor was in the base or not. Did the floor receive any loadings? This is missing in the manuscript.
  • -  Species of the wood beam was not known. It was weird. Anatomical identification should help.

Reply 3:

Thank you for these comments. They made us realize that some points were not adequately exposed in the text, and that some clarifications were needed.

The Tower of Montorio suffered considerable damage due to the strong Earthquake that occurred in those areas in September 2003. Its subsequent process of rehabilitation and restoration involved a widespread experimental campaign and the substitution of some timber beams. This circumstance has offered a rare opportunity to study these ancient elements in detail, although limited in number. Only six beams have been removed and this limited number has not allowed us to obtain statistically significant results. However, dealing with architectural heritage, ancient elements to remove and to test trough destructive methods are rarely available. For this reason, the paper aims to provide a methodological approach and to share with scientific community data especially valuable because they are rare. (see Lines 11-18 and 94-98 highlighted with color)

The indagated beams are part of the second floor and are made of local oak (Quercus Robur L.).

During past renovation works of the Tower, in the second half of the last century, an additional tick unreinforced concrete slab and new partition walls significantly increased the superimposed load, causing a marked inflection of most of the beams. (see Lines 63-75)

Comment 4:

Therefore, I reject this manuscript to publish in NDT Journal of MDPI.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

_{The manuscript can be published, but the lines are still not clear enough to be understood and require necessary language services.}

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript can be published, but the lines are still not clear enough to be understood and require necessary language services.

Author Response

Comments 

The authors took into consideration and, overall is ok for publication 

Still some linguistic review is advisable for secondary linguistic errors. Still the text is quite clear. 

Reply 

Authors thank you for the careful review. Text has been reread and it underwent further linguistic revisions. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into consideration and, overall is ok for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still some linguistic review is advised for secondary linguistic errors. Still the text is quite clear.

Author Response

Comments 

The manuscript can be published, but the lines are still not clear enough to be understood and require necessary language services. 

Reply 

Authors thank you for the careful review. Manuscript has been reviewed to make the exposition clearer.  

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have rejected this manuscript in the first round due to limitation samples. Considering the revised version, when I re-read the manuscript, the statistical analysis showed not significant result, again, due to limitation samples. The suggestion in my view is the authors add some testing again for example anatomical of the wood for supporting the data of the ancient wood structures.

Author Response

Comments 

I have rejected this manuscript in the first round due to limitation samples. Considering the revised version, when I re-read the manuscript, the statistical analysis showed not significant result, again, due to limitation samples. The suggestion in my view is the authors add some testing again for example anatomical of the wood for supporting the data of the ancient wood structures. 

Reply 

Authors thank you for the careful review and for suggestions. Thanks to your previous comment, we realized that the context in which these beams have been studied had to be clarified in terms of limits and opportunities. Limits are due to the fact that only a limited number of beams have been removed from the tower because much of them have been conserved in their place. Opportunities are due to fact that six beams have been studied in detail and the authors consider these data especially valuable. Even if the number of specimens is limited, destructive tests and their comparison with non-destructive ones are not commonly available in literature when it comes to ancient elements. On the other hand, being aware of the limits of the simple size, authors have not defined the results as statistically relevant.