Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments need to be addressed for the manuscript to be considered

·         The literature is lacking enough review of previous studies to justify the research gap, and research problem. There is need to do more review and include

·         Section 4 should be splitted, do not merge the numerical methods and the results analysis

·         How are your models validated?

·         Please include a section to link your models with practical applications

·         Clearly state the research problem, research gap and research objectives at the end of the introduction

·         The conclusions are much and looks like result discussion. Please rewrite the conclusion in brief and should be based on your objectives

·         Give recommendations based on your models

·         Please check and correct all grammatical errors, as there are many errors in the manuscript

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study describes in detail the manufacture of a numerical model to investigate the behavior of elastic-inelastic infilled frames using the meso-model. The paper is well-written, has good scientific content and is suitable for publication.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your feedback on our journal. We really appreciate that. And we improved this revised version of the journal with various kinds of suggestions/corrections from other reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present a well-written paper related to the use of a meso-modeling approach to study damage states of the infilled frame structure. However, the paper needs some improvements in order to be accepted for publication, namely:

1. The Introduction section should be improved and expanded with a more relevant literature review and the novelty of this work should be explained clearly.

2. A comparison between the different methods used to analyse the phenomenon studied should be presented.

3. A statistical analyse of the numerical results obtained should be presented.

4. The Conclusions section should be re-written with a more concise explanation of the results obtained.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all comments

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for the corrections, suggestions, and attention that have been given to improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for the corrections, suggestions, and attention that have been given to improve our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors improved the paper in accordance with Reviewer's suggestions. The paper could be published

Author Response

We would like to thank you very much for the corrections, suggestions, and attention that have been given to improve our manuscript.