Numerical Analysis of Masonry-Infilled RC-CLT Panel Connections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present work mainly focuses on comparing five connectors with reference to their roles on seismic mitigation of an masonry-infilled RC frame strengthened with a Cross-laminated Timber panel.
I accept this manuscript to be published in Buildings Journal. To improve the manuscript, please consider the following comments:
1- Your work focused on CLT panels, give some details about their types and the production quantity, especially in Europe.
2-For more clarification, line 103, Page 4, add to the text the proposed equation by (Bodig and Jayne 1982) that allowed to define the Poisson coefficients for the CLT panel.
3- The Conclusion should focus on the application of your findings and should not just repeat the main results
Author Response
1- Your work focused on CLT panels, give some details about their types and the production quantity, especially in Europe.
Some details about the production quantity and their types were added.
2-For more clarification, line 103, Page 4, add to the text the proposed equation by (Bodig and Jayne 1982) that allowed to define the Poisson coefficients for the CLT panel.
The equation was added.
3- The Conclusion should focus on the application of your findings and should not just repeat the main results.
The conclusion have been modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title: Numerical analysis of masonry-infilled RC-CLT panels connections
Authors: Mehdipour et. al.
General
Article describes the analysis of different connectors used to attach CLT panels to concrete frames. The connectors are analysed according to different criteria. The article could be of practical use, but it has a number of shortcomings.
Comments
The captions are not visible in all images. Enlarge the font.
L 103 – What are mechanical properties of CLT panels?
Figure 3- Connectors III to V are not clear. Make bigger details (connector III) and more clear picture (connector V)
L134- what are M2, M3
What are the constants for connectors used in model?
Figure 12 and 13. Add more detailed description of Figures, so that the reader can distinguish the difference without reading the article.
Figure 14- Lines for connector II and IV have the same color.
Equation 1- describe the constants (delta m, delta y).
Table 4 - Reference?
Figure 16- bare or infilled RC Frame?
L358-364 - The whole paragraph is incorrect. Since the natural frequencies of frames are higher than the excitation frequencies, the frames cannot be on the right-hand side of the picture, but on the left-hand side, in front of the resonances of the fundamental frequencies. However, since seismic excitation is not harmonic, all excitations have higher harmonics in addition to the fundamental frequencies (2.54, 1.27, 1.71, 2.93, 1.63, and 1.86 Hz), which can also excite resonant oscillations. The higher the harmonics, the lower their amplitudes. This can be seen clearly in the case of connector I, which has the lowest natural frequency. This means that the resonant oscillation is already excited by the lower harmonic frequencies, which have higher amplitudes than the higher ones, and therefore the amplitude of the oscillation is also greater. The situation is different for connectors III and IV, where the assembly has a higher natural frequency. Here the resonant oscillation is excited by higher harmonic frequencies with lower amplitude than in connector I, which also means lower amplitude than in connector I. Similar trend is for Frames without CLT.
Author Response
please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors corrected the article in accordance with the recommendations, so I suggest accepting the article.
