Experimental Verification of Methods for Converting Acceleration Data in High-Rise Buildings into Displacement Data by Shaking Table Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript has significantly improved as compared to the first version. The organization of the material is now much better and the manuscript follows a logical line. The methods are also better explained. However, my main criticism remains the same: the value of the manuscript is at the engineering level -- which is not to diminish it (!) -- and not relevant to a contribution in research. Indeed, the proposed techniques are standard applications of signal processing tools, which are well-known even though may not have been published... just because they are standard. These techniques used routinely in engineering and the absence of publication (to be checked...) does not justifies that there is space for novelety...

The manuscript may be published in a magazine or as part of a textbook, but not in a research journal.

Author Response

Authors would like to express sincerely thanks to the reviewer for the comments. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments. Please check attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the application of three Methods for the conversion of acceleration signals to velocity and displacement data. The Authors declare that they are using three methods already present in the scientific literature (Method 1 Ref [29], Method 2 Ref [30] and Method 3 Ref [14]). In this way, seems that the paper is not an Original Research, but a technical contribution.

Starting from this point of view, I think that experimental applications of even existing procedures could be of interest for the scientific community, but the paper should be considered as a Communication or a Technical Note.

Nevertheless, there are some aspects that must be improved:

- No information are given about the accelerometers used in the tests (MEMS, Piezo,…) and at which frequency rate the data have been acquired

- The methods must be described more in detail, even if they are recalled in the bibliography, also by dedicating a separate paragraph for each of them. In the Method 1 the corrected acceleration (see Figure 4) cannot be called with the same symbol of the Fourier transfer acceleration. In the Method 2 some coefficients of the baseline correction a0 shown in Fig 5 are not described (c0 an c1). I suggest also to recall Figures 4-6 in the text.

- The damping ratio of the structure is supposed to be as 10%. It seems quite high. Why did you not measure it experimentally? For example by estimating the logarithmic decay of the accelerations through free vibrations.

- Several sentences in the text make no sense (line 257: “…the frequency domain method is also called a frequency domain method…”; line 466: “…which converts acceleration installed in a tall building…” ). Moreover, according to me, some contents are not appropriated (e.g.: the first paragraph of the Section 2.1 regarding the shaking table tests is very general and not necessary).

- The English requires an in-depth review.

Author Response

Authors would like to express sincerely thanks to the reviewer for the comments. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments. Please check attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript entitled "Experimental Verification on the Methods for Converting from Acceleration in the High-rise Buildings into Displacement by Shaking Table Test" does present some interesting results, and therefore is appropriate for publication in Applied Sciences. However, some minor corrections need to be made to improve the scientific quality of this paper.

Specifically, the last chapter (Discussion), which according to the reviewer is probably the most important one as it presents key findings, should definitely be improved. Additional discussion or commentary should definately be added. 

Author Response

Authors would like to express sincerely thanks to the reviewer for the comments. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments. Please check attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study evaluates the accuracy of three methods for converting the acceleration response to the displacement and velocity data for a small-scale high-rise building model under shake table loading. This reviewer believes that the study is interesting and the results are significant. The English writing can be improved and the following comments are recommended to address before final publication:

· Please check the entire paper for typos: For example, in Figure 2, the typo should be corrected: High raise building model
And in the text and Figures: “Manji earthquake” should be “Manjil earthquake”

· Please avoid any repetition: Line 118-120, the exact sentence is repeated:
‘Previous researches on strong motion have identified the cause of the noise and frequency domain of the accelerometer. Previous researches on strong motion have identified the cause of the noise and frequency domain of the accelerometer.’

· Also, please add references to each statement. For example, “Previous researches on strong motion have identified the cause of the noise and frequency domain of the accelerometer.”
“A variety of processing and filters have been 120 developed to compensate for this and are being used in seismic accelerometers”

· Please explain why these three earthquake records were used:
Line 298: “Figure 7 shows the excitation force of the shaking table test. In the test, three earthquake accelerations such as Manji earthquake, Superst earthquake, and Kobe earthquake were used.”

· It should be added that the study is based on a small-scale model.

· Please explain the influence of scaling on the results and conclusions?

· “the response of high-rise building is affected by low and high-frequency noise” Please explain this in more detail in the body of the text.

· The last section (5) should be “Conclusions” not “Discussions”

Author Response

Authors would like to express sincerely thanks to the reviewer for the comments. The manuscript has been revised based on the comments. Please check attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have addressed all the requirements. The paper is recommended for publication in this form.