The Experimental Study on Mechanical Behavior of Conveyor Belt Rubber Bearings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper shows the results related to an experimental tests campaign on conveyor belt rubber bearings.
The research activity has been developed carefully and the results seem interesting.
It would have been appropriate to complete research with a numerical model to validate the experimental finding.
In anyway, it can be done in a next paper. The manuscript is advisable for a possible pubblication even if
some issues listed below should be faced and also the english writing is to be revised.

1) The last sentence of the abstract it is not very clear. It seems not concluded..please verify.

2) Figures 2, 3 and 4 can be better organized and could be put in a unique figure.

3) The figure 5 is a little bit "skinny". Try to insert ohter photos for both to fill the figure
and to have different points of view of the samples.

4) Figure 6, 7 amd 8 same observation of Figures 2, 3 and 4.

5) From Figure 11 to Figure 14: insert the legend of dashed lines green and red.

6) Figure 15 is completely unclear. Try to better explain through sketchs, arrows and so on...

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting article, but unfortunately not very well edited. The objective of the research is not clearly defined. What is the difference between rural and urban buildings ? The article is rather about searching for a cheap technology to protect low rise residential building from earthquakes. 

The descriptions in figures 2, 3 and 4 should be corrected.
- The source of the formula (1) shall be indicated.
- Formula (3) requires an illustration of the markings used (S, a, tr).  
- Errors in the second column of Table 1, what is "Sl", from where two values of Sl.
- In Figure 5 the differences between the bearings are not visible.
- Figure 7 is unnecessary.
- In Fig.8 there are no visible damages.
- Fig. 11-13 must be made in the same scale.
- Fig. 16-19 should be replaced by one figure with four diagrams.
- Fig. 21 (b) Y = 50% ....
- Fig. 22-25 should be made in the same scale.

On what basis did the authors find the tested bearings useful for buildings?
What parameters should seismic isolation bearings have in buildings, including in low-rise buildings ? The assessment of suitability and effectiveness of proposed solutions in buildings can also be verified by experience or numerically. The article lacks these comparisons. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Some of the authors' explanations should be included in the text e.g.
"In the subsequent research, we will consider using the new bearing in a low-rise building to conduct shake table tests ...."

Complete the origin of formula (1). The most widely known correlation of durometer values to Young’s modulus was put forth in 1958 by A. N. Gent. 

Figure 3 is still illegible. Different size of font, no difference between fiber and rubber layer is visible.

Figure 4b is still illegible.

93. Replace "shore" by "Shore"

94. Insert "Poisson's ratio" after "where"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx