Vibration Signal Diagnostic Information of Reinforced Masonry Elements Destruction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper proposed a vibration-signal based method to identify the damage of reinforced masonry elements. The FRF, transmittance and coherence function of the test system were found to be correlated to the occurring damages. It is interesting to the general readers of mechanical engineering and civil engineering, however it is poorly written.

The following points should be addressed for further consideration.

1- The introduction section was only a simple list of relevant research results. An in-depth review and analysis of the current research progress is needed. In particular, destructive and nondestructive testing methods for masonry elements should be reviewed.

2- Many sentences having the same or similar meaning were repeated again and again in the text.

3- Extensive language editing are required. Also, there are lots of typing and format errors.

4- Acronym should be defined at the first. For example, SISO in the abstract.

5- All the figures and Tables should be cited in the text.

6- Experiment details including the specimen dimensions, loading and sensing location should be indicated in Figures 2 to 4.

7- Test results were only ploted in Figures 5 to 10, detailed comparison and analysis should be conducted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for your critical but kind comments on the article. We have tried to take into account all comments contained in the review and decided to change and hopefully improve the article. Please understand and accept the possibility of its publication. We, the authors, depend on this very much

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The paper discusses about an experimental campaign performed on unreinforced and reinforced masonry brick specimens. Experimental tests include both compressive destructive tests and dynamic non-destructive impact load tests.

The topic of the paper is interesting. Nevertheless, important deficiencies are detectable in the research description (method and result discussion) and the research aim is not clear. For these reasons, major reviews are requested:

1.       It is suggestable to simplify the title because it is rather difficult to understand and the paper topic does not immediately result (hence it is a cons in the decision to read the paper).

2.       In the abstract, the paper contents must be declared more clearly. In addition, the paper aim is not clear. Finally, the English language is not so good in this part. Please revise it consistently.

3.       The paper contents must be better and widely described in the introduction. It is advisable to add a brief description of the methodology and of the main performed tests/analyses.

4.       The Reviewer suggests to add this recent reference when discussing about SISO methods in civil engineering field: “Nicoletti V, Arezzo D, Carbonari S, Gara F. Expeditious methodology for the estimation of infill masonry wall stiffness through in-situ dynamic tests. Constr. Build. Mat., 262, 120807, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120807”.

5.       The description of the experimental campaign on samples is reported in the second part of Section 2.2. However, it is suggestable to dedicate to this part a dedicated sub-chapter.

6.       The dynamic experimental campaign is too briefly described. Please, add more information about the adopted instrumentation, the testing procedures (where the sensor and the impacts were provided, the constraint condition of the specimen, etc).

7.       At pag. 9, line 213, Authors write: “…the remaining figures show the numerical measures of the examined functions…”; what the Authors mean with the term “numerical measures”? Did they do some numerical analyses?

8.       The Authors provide a long list of tables and figures in Section 3, but they do not explicate the main results (the Section 4 about discussion is merely a future developments section). The Authors cannot assume that a reader will understand the usefulness of the research just by looking at a series of figures and numbers.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for your critical but kind comments on the article. We have tried to take into account all comments contained in the review and decided to change and hopefully improve the article. Please understand and accept the possibility of its publication. We, the authors, depend on this very much

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

It seems that most comments have been properly reflected, except the two points: 1) where were the sensor mounted? in which part were the impacts applied on the specimen? and what kinds of instruments were used? More information regarding the experimental tests should be provided. 2) in section 3, please elaborate the test results instead of only listing some figures and tables.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for Your quick reply.

The article has been re-edited in accordance with your recommendations.

I also allow myself to write a few comments

This study presents the results of the research on the different state of degradation of building structure elements. For this purpose, the LMS SCADAS Recorder device was used, combining the features of an analyzer and a classic recorder, and the SIEMENS Test Express software. Lab for conducting research and visualizing results.

For the description and determination of vibration estimators in these studies, MATLAB programs were developed or adapted and practically implemented: a program for visualizing test results in Excel, a program Symptomy PROGRAM in MATLAB for determining estimators of the vibration process.

The results in graphical and numerical form in the work present the results of such a procedure, showing successively: excitation force waveforms, responses to excitation data in the form of vibration acceleration amplitude, vibration spectra of these signals, FRF waveforms, transmittance and coherence function.

The final results of a detailed analysis of the results of this work are as follows:

- changes in the destruction of ceramic segments are well diagnosed by the measures - FRFr, H(f)r, coher;

- changes in the destruction of silicate segments are well diagnosed by the measures - FRFu, H(f)u, coher.

Therefore, it is possible to initially propose a practical method for testing changes in the state of destruction of wall segments using the EAM of the vibration signal and its measures: FRFr, FRFu, coher.

 

Thank You again and please be gentle - Authors

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The Reviewer recognize that the Authors modified the first part of the paper, improving its quality. Nevertheless, the second part of the paper is still lacking crucial information. The dynamic experimental campaign (on which the paper is based) is very poorly described. Furthermore, the result discussion is difficult to be proven; for instance, the Authors declare that changes in the destruction of ceramic segments are well diagnosed by the measures FRFr, H(f)r, coher. How is it proven? A conjunction with the obtained graphs and tables (results) is fundamental. How is possible to detect a damage (and maybe its evolution) from the obtained results? Which paramaters and change magnitudes should be controlled?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for Your quick reply.

The article has been re-edited in accordance with your recommendations.

I also allow myself to write a few comments

 

The presented study focuses on the study of the usefulness of vibration diagnostics and modal analysis methods for assessing the degradation of selected building construction materials, proposing a systemic solution to the research methodology in the field of acquisition and processing of signals obtained from degradation tests of selected elements.

Experiments were carried out on selected samples of various types of reinforced concrete wall elements made of brick. During the vibration tests, the segments were subjected to various loads, observing how the increasing cracking and damage changed the courses of the measured functions of the vibration process, reflecting the damage to the segments.

FRF, transmittance and coherence functions in different periods of segment aging and wear are vibration functions that detect developing damage.

Thanks to this numerical information, as well as graphic differences in the course of the transition function, it is possible to determine the visual and numerical characteristics of the beginning of state changes (damage stage) of the tested segments.

FRF, transmittance and coherence functions in different periods of segment aging and wear are vibration functions that detect developing damage.

Thanks to this numerical information, as well as graphic differences in the course of the transition function, it is possible to determine the visual and numerical characteristics of the beginning of state changes (damage stage) of the tested segments.

 

Thank You again and please be gentle - Authors

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript evaluates the “Diagnostic information contained in the vibration signal used in the examination of the destruction of reinforced masonry elements.”. The manuscript is described and contextualized with the help of previous and present theoretical background. However, The introduction section need to be improved. All the references cited are relevant to this area of research. But the number of references is low. The methods/analytical study are clearly stated. However, The discussion need to be strengthened. The result and discussion section are clearly presented. The manuscript needs revision and require the following modifications before the acceptance.

1. Abstract: The line “Thank to this authors  could determine the vibration characteristics variability of reinforced wall elements obtained measurement results, and assess the usefulness of the used research method. The aim was to test the  assess effectiveness of tested reinforced wall elements degradation.” Is not necessary

2. Increase the number of key words.

3. Introduction is too short. Strengthen it by including background of the study/Literatures.

4. What is the novelty of your research?

5. Table 5. Prepare it according to journal format,

6. Discussion should be strengthened.

7. Conclusion part is tedious. Make it brief.

8. Number of citation/references should be increased. Also, cite more recent works,

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviews.

We take the liberty of submitting a revised version of the article, which has been corrected in accordance with the comments that were rightly pointed out in the review.

We took the liberty of referring to the comments and marked their improvement:

Increase the number of key words. - DONE

Introduction is too short. Strengthen it by including background of the study/Literatures. – changed added

4. What is the novelty of your research?

There is no study buforu that made the examination by using modal analysis methodollogy for reinforcement masonry segments, that were Reinforced with diferent mesh types.

5. Table 5. Prepare it according to journal format -DONE
6. Discussion should be strengthened - DONE
7. Conclusion part is tedious. Make it brief.- we made it shorter.
8. Number of citation/references should be increased. Also, cite more recent works – DONE

We would like to ask for your understanding and favor, because we do not hide that we are very interested in the possibility of publishing a given article

 

Warm greetings

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the issue of diagnostics of reinforced masonry structures. The topic is highly topical and needs to be addressed. The issue of the stability of masonry structures is currently relevant precisely because of the danger of losing the stability of buildings in the event of adverse natural disasters (earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.), which are becoming more frequent even in locations where they were not there before. Another risk for buildings are accidents and attacks that cause explosions and fires. Modal analysis is commonly used in mechanical engineering, but has not yet been used for reinforced masonry structures. Therefore, the investigation of the application of this methodology is current and important also for practical purposes. Such a form of diagnostics has a high informative value and can provide information about the current state and, in a certain way, predict the life of the masonry structure. This is of key importance for the safety and assessment of constructions, especially for the minimization of security threats to people.
The article contains the results of the authors' experimental work, which is of significant importance mainly for the application possibilities of this methodology in larger buildings. Thanks to this, it is possible to assess the usefulness of the applied method in determining the degree of degradation of a masonry building.

Comments:
The introduction of the article is too brief. It should contain a more detailed overview of the current state and references to similar work in this area.

Line 50: "research[6,7]" - missing space

Equation 1: if the symbols are scalar quantities, they should be italic style. If they are matrix, they should be like bold style. Likewise on line 60.

Equation 2 must be written in the correct form with the equation editor. "^2" should be written as a power and I recommend writing it as a mathematical fraction. And also italic and bold style should be used for symbols. In the next text, it is also written badly mathematically.

When using the abbreviation "FRF" for the first time, it should be written that it is "Frequency Response Function"

On line 82: "y(t)", "x(t)", h(t)" should be as italic style.
similarly on line 107, 111, 117, 126

Line 139, 145: "200kN" missing space 200 kN

Table 2, 3 and 5: There are numbers with decimal commas. Use decimal points.

Table 5 looks terrible. It should be converted as a table with text and not as an image. There are missing units for the quantities X data

Figure 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 large graphs have low resolution or need to be reduced a bit

Line 225: What does it mean "research morm"

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviews.

We take the liberty of submitting a revised version of the article, which has been corrected in accordance with the comments that were rightly pointed out in the review.

We took the liberty of referring to the comments and marked their improvement:

Comments:
The introduction of the article is too brief. It should contain a more detailed overview of the current state and references to similar work in this area. - done

Line 50: "research[6,7]" - missing space - done

Equation 1: if the symbols are scalar quantities, they should be italic style. If they are matrix, they should be like bold style. Likewise on line 60.

Equation 2 must be written in the correct form with the equation editor. "^2" should be written as a power and I recommend writing it as a mathematical fraction. And also italic and bold style should be used for symbols. In the next text, it is also written badly mathematically.

When using the abbreviation "FRF" for the first time, it should be written that it is "Frequency Response Function"

On line 82: "y(t)", "x(t)", h(t)" should be as italic style.
similarly on line 107, 111, 117, 126

Line 139, 145: "200kN" missing space 200 kN - done

Table 2, 3 and 5: There are numbers with decimal commas. Use decimal points.

Table 5 looks terrible. It should be converted as a table with text and not as an image. There are missing units for the quantities X data

Figure 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 large graphs have low resolution or need to be reduced a bit - done

Line 225: What does it mean "research morm" – changed to research procedure

 

We would like to ask for your understanding and favor, because we do not hide that we are very interested in the possibility of publishing a given article

Warm greetings

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript is interesting and treats a very important aspect, fundamentally the detection of the damages in structural elements.

The authors have considered three examples under laboratory conditions. Undamaged masonry “columns”, damaged masonry “columns” and reinforced masonry “columns”. All these samples, clearly represent different properties and is expected to behave and respond differently under test measurements. The authors use vibrations and the measurements of those waves to capcture the change on the mechanical properties. Under an incremental compressive force, and under continuous vibration test, the force increment caused incremental damages and the meassurements of the vibrations waves highlighted that. Generally speaking the output was trivial.

Under real and practical conditions, capturing an incremental damage with continuous monitoring of the wave characteristics is difficult. This approach is already treated in the literature and the drawbacks are known. Most importantly, practically, it is very difficult to be implement and is applied only on structures with have a very easy dynamic response, like a bell tower. In all the cases it is quite impossible to track the location of the damage and its quantity.

Given the above considerations, I do not notice a progress in addressing those issues, thenceforth I do recommend declining the article. The authors are encouraged to conceive their research work in a different way.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviews.

We take the liberty of submitting a revised version of the article, which has been corrected in accordance with the comments that were rightly pointed out in the review.

We would like to ask for your understanding and favor, because we do not hide that we are very interested in the possibility of publishing a given article

Warm greetings

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The study carried out is interesting in the field of building construction, however, some improvements could be made as indicated below:

In general, the wording and some specific issues of "English" could be improved.

Regarding the "Abstract" is correct, but it could be improved by structuring it in the classical way "objects, methodology, results, discussion and conclusions".

Regarding the introduction, it is very concise and references of authors who have carried out some similar trials are missing (possible need for comparison and extension of indication of innovations and novelties.

Regarding the materials and method, something similar occurs, because although the theoretical and practical development is extensive, the use of the chosen equations should be better justified, since it is understood that the references made are not enough to affirm that proposals from other authors could not be an alternative. Comparison and justification that it has been the best choice. In general, broaden the justifications for the characteristics of the trials in terms of their choice.

Regarding the methodology, it is understood that the wording could be improved. Even a general study flowchart would be helpful. Authors should assume that readers should be able to reproduce as easily as possible what has been done.

The discussion section should be developed more and better. It must be remembered that the discussion section is the one in which you relate the results of your research with the theory, the state of the art and your own research.

The results section is a section that contains a description about the main findings of an investigation, while the discussion section interprets the results for the readers and provides the importance of the findings. This section should not repeat the results section.

The results are interesting, but perhaps they should be presented with more detailed limitations.

Improve graphic quality of some figures and tables as they seem somewhat distorted, although it may be a problem with the format of the template.

Regarding the conclusions, there is practically the same wording in several points (3 and 4). Emphasize the justification of the advance in that it is significant enough in terms of its impact on the corresponding scientific field.

In short, the manuscript must be reviewed, since in addition to some formal questions and enriching the bibliographical references, the writing and the information offered must be complemented and improved, in addition to raising some doubts about whether the progress is true and significant enough, compared to other already known issues.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviews.

We take the liberty of submitting a revised version of the article, which has been corrected in accordance with the comments that were rightly pointed out in the review.

We would like to ask for your understanding and favor, because we do not hide that we are very interested in the possibility of publishing a given article

Warm greetings

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

1. Your problem should be stated in the abstract, followed by a justification for your choice of the subject matter. Please add two to three lines describing the issue with your study.

2. The introduction section is extremely short; if possible, please add a few or more content along with constructive references.

3. Please increase the resolution of the frequency image in a result that appears extremely blurry.

4. The article contains only 21 references, which is very few according to journal standards; therefore, as suggested in the first comment, the introduction should be expanded to include at least 15 references; overall, the article must contain at least 35 references.

5. How did you measure the signal of the vibrations? please explain data collection process

6. The quality of the discussion is very poor, and there is no comparative study in the discussion; therefore, please strengthen the discussion to improve the article.

7. Why does table 5 appear in image format? any particular reason

8. The article does not have a clear beginning and end; therefore, you should include a flowchart that explains the entire methodology of the article so that readers can comprehend it.

9. Many equations are interspersed throughout the article; please identify their source or provide justification.

10. Please add a few points regarding future scope and recommendations that will improve the quality of the article as well as aid future researchers working on this project.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your reviews.

We take the liberty of submitting a revised version of the article, which has been corrected in accordance with the comments that were rightly pointed out in the review.

We took the liberty of referring to the comments and marked their improvement:

 

1. Your problem should be stated in the abstract, followed by a justification for your choice of the subject matter. Please add two to three lines describing the issue with your study.
2. The introduction section is extremely short; if possible, please add a few or more content along with constructive references - DONE
3. Please increase the resolution of the frequency image in a result that appears extremely blurry - DONE
4. The article contains only 21 references, which is very few according to journal standards; therefore, as suggested in the first comment, the introduction should be expanded to include at least 15 references; overall, the article must contain at least 35 references - DONE
5. How did you measure the signal of the vibrations? please explain data collection process
6. The quality of the discussion is very poor, and there is no comparative study in the discussion; therefore, please strengthen the discussion to improve the article.- DONE
7. Why does table 5 appear in image format? any particular reason - CHANGED
8. The article does not have a clear beginning and end; therefore, you should include a flowchart that explains the entire methodology of the article so that readers can comprehend it. - DONE
9. Many equations are interspersed throughout the article; please identify their source or provide justification.
10. Please add a few points regarding future scope and recommendations that will improve the quality of the article as well as aid future researchers working on this project. - DONE

We would like to ask for your understanding and favor, because we do not hide that we are very interested in the possibility of publishing a given article

Warm greetings

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The athour addressed all the comment raised by me.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank You very much for the information, great to see it, Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors claim that after some support in the near future, the authors will be able to make more tests, and this will allow to for the development of a more detailed and dedicated procedure for determining the damage of this type of elements using non-destructive vibration methodology.

I do have a simple question for the authors.

A single rectangular masonry wall, subjected to a uniformly distributed load, has been damaged 5 years ago due to an unknown external effect. in one side it was formed a vertical crack, and in the center of the wall was formed a diagonal crack.  I say unknown because, the intervention performed didn't accounted for this unknown effect.  The wall was covered externally with 2 cm thick plaster and so far nothing has occurred to the wall, but the crack were to small to be filled with plaster and at the present the cracks are not visible. It is the necessity to investigate all the masonry building, to find the ones which requires structural retrofitting and to guarantee structural safety due to an update of the codes!

How would you detect the position and the length of these cracks with your method?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank YOU very much for your question. As Professor noted, this methodology is constantly being developed by us and we are constantly learning to generate new cognitive information and we are getting closer (thanks to a large research sample) to the end of work on creating a dedicated procedure for determining damage to reinforced elements using non-destructive vibration methodology.

As for the question: How would you detect the position and the length of these cracks with your method?

It is thanks to our methodology that it is possible to determine the shape and size. By distinguishing the course of the function of vibration energy flow measures, we can determine the size of the crack, and by generating natural vibration frequencies, we can determine the width of the cracks. What is new that we are working on now is the fact that we have developed two proprietary statistical methodologies (SVD - Signal Value Decomposition and OPTIMUM), which allow for in-depth statistical decomposition of the registered vibration signal and thus obtaining new diagnostic information contained in the signal. I think that in the next article we will start to describe this methodology of obtaining statistical information in more detail.

All the Best

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Many of the comments made in the first revision have been included and it is recognized that the document has improved. However, there are some issues that have not yet been included, such as trying to improve some aspects of the wording, for example, in the conclusions of sections 3 and 4 (although it refers to the same thing for different parameters, it is understood that some of the points may have similar wording but not exactly the same as each other). 

On the other hand, in the references, although some interesting ones have been added, more could be added, of a specific and even generic nature in terms of the introduction of the most alleged defects (for example, the author Carretero-Ayuso and his article "Estudio Comparison of Deterioration in Facades......").

To the extent possible, in general review the wording in order to clarify as much as possible.

As for the rest of the topics, it is considered that although something could be improved, it can be considered that it can be an act for publication.

Author Response

Dear, Reviewer,

Thank You very much for the information.

The  comments made by YOU in the 2 revision have been changed and added, by authors.

We hope now there is an permission to publish made by YOU Profesor,

All the Best

Authors 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Your answer regarding my question is not correct. All your research work and paper is based on registering the progressive damage from incremental loads in an element to detect and evaluate the damage. Your approach cannot give the answer of my question, that's why I questioned your approach. Moreover, all the results your present are very trivial. And, in addition, you do not need more tests and results, its about quality not quantity.

Generally speaking, you cannot solve the problem of damage detection according to your approach. The problem is very complex and requires much more disciplines to be interconnected.

You can write an article in statistical decomposition if you claim that is is a strength point of your research, but for the moment, and as I see for a near future, with the present approaches and based in your answers, I do not see light at the end of the tunnel.

With regret, I stay at my previous opinion to decline the article!