Innovative Experimental Assessment of Human–Structure Interaction Effects on Footbridges with Accurate Multi-Axial Dynamic Sensitivity Using Real-Time Hybrid Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

attached; major revisions is selected because the authors need to make the relevant figures better readable (legend colour) and the 2 feet frequency shall be given; the rest of the paper is fine

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and valuable insight. We have modified the manuscript considering your recommendations and the suggestions from the other reviewer. We are confident that the revised version enhances the overall clarity and impact of the paper. Please find in the attached file a comprehensive list of answers to your observations.

Best regard,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Line 45: Reference [25] is missing. Please verify and correct this in the manuscript.

(2) Line 157: The term ‘module’ should be corrected to ‘modulus.’

(3) In Figure 1, the first three modes of vibration in both the horizontal and vertical directions should be represented as plan views and elevation views, respectively. Please revise accordingly. Additionally, provide details on the finite element software unit types and boundary conditions used.

(4) Line 150: The authors mention the use of an equivalent cross-section in the simulation. Please specify the cross-sectional type of the footbridge to give readers a clearer understanding of the bridge (Damage identification of steel bridge based on data augmentation and adaptive optimization neural network). Furthermore, include essential basic information about the bridge, such as span and support types.

(5) Line 172: The number of participants in the tests is inconsistent. Please verify and correct this information.

(6) Finite element models developed from design drawings generally cannot be directly used for condition assessment. It is recommended that the authors revise the finite element model based on test information to ensure that the dynamic responses of the model closely match the test results (Vibration-Based Structural Damage Identification under Varying Temperature Effects). Please explain the differences between the methods used in the paper and the finite element model correction methods, including their advantages and disadvantages.

(7) The font size in the figures and tables is inconsistent. Please standardize the font size according to the captions. The existing captions are too lengthy and should be revised. Each figure should have a caption, with labels such as (a), (b), (c), etc.

(8) What is the objective of the research? Is it to determine the optimal pedestrian walking speed or to obtain the structural resonance frequency? If the vibrations are excessive, what measures will be taken? Please provide clarification.

(9) As described in the paper, experimental assessment of human-structure interaction effects on footbridges can be conducted using real-time hybrid simulation. However, several aspects need to be further addressed, including the progress in structural health monitoring (The Current Development of Structural Health Monitoring for Bridges: A Review) and methods for recovering missing measurement data (Missing measurement data recovery methods in structural health monitoring: The state, challenges and case study).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and valuable insight. We have modified the manuscript considering your recommendations and the suggestions from the other reviewer. We are confident that the revised version enhances the overall clarity and impact of the paper. Please find in the attached file a comprehensive list of answers to your observations.

Best regard,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is not properly organized. The motivation is not clearly clarified. The so-called experimental assessment highlighted in the title is misleading to the readers. Theoretical formulation and simulation regarding the human-structure interaction are well-known facts published decades ago. The soundness and strength of the current work is poor.

 

Walking velocity or step frequency that dominant the human-structure interaction is well-known facts. Gait velocities OVER 1.20 (1.50, and 1.80 m/s) are not rational for a common scenario.

 

Based these considerations, the paper is not recommended for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and valuable insight. We have modified the manuscript considering your recommendations and the suggestions from the other reviewer. We are confident that the revised version enhances the overall clarity and impact of the paper. Please find in the attached file a comprehensive list of answers to your observations.

Best regard,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accepted

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addresssing my comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried to claim some of the concerns. Still I think it is not basically improved from aspects of either novelty or application. The proposed framework is not new concept. The beam-like structure model only applies to footbridges or similar structure.

 

The authors claimed that "The higher velocities (1.50 and 1.80 m/s) were chosen to assess the structural response under less common but still relevant conditions." It is irrational. Higher density will restrict the step velocity of individuals.

 

I am disappointed that no significant improvement was made. The paper is not acceptable in its current form.