Seismic and Energy Performance Evaluation of Large-Scale Curtain Walls Subjected to Displacement Control Fasteners
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an interesting and original study about the seismic behaviour of glass façades, which I believe it is interesting for publishing.
However, there are many issues in the paper that should be corrected or clarified, otherwise it should be rejected.
The English should be revised and corrected. As an example, in line 30 of the first paragraph, where is “stability of a high-rise buildings” it should be “stability of a high-rise building” or “stability of high-rise buildings”, and sentences between lines 34 and 38 does not make much sense and should be rewritten. The same applies to the whole manuscript. Otherwise, an interesting paper will be diminished by grammar problems, because many times it is very difficult to understand what the authors meant to say.
In lines 64 and 65, besides the English problem, there is a confusion between intensity and magnitude (it is not the same scale). Gyeongju Earthquake was an earthquake with a magnitude ML=5.8 (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12303-017-0050-4, for example).
In line 285, the authors stated that a nonlinear static analysis (pushover) was carried out. However, no capacity curve is presented, whatsoever. And what was the adopted force pattern?
The authors should clarify what type of dynamic analysis was carried out, as referred in lines 302 to 304. In line 362, a time history analysis is referred. What was the input of the analysis? An accelerogram? If so, which one? And how the dynamic response was computed?
The designation of section 3.5 is a bit odd, namely the last part: “under Dynamic Seismic Events”. This title implies that exist seismic events which induce static effects…
In the conclusion section, this idea is emphasised: “static and dynamic earthquakes”. What is a “static earthquake”?
Figure 4 appears before it is referred in the text, which should be corrected. The same applies to figures 13 and 14, and 26-28, and to Tables 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10.
Tables 12 to 15 are not referred in the text.
For all those reasons, I recommend a major revision of the paper, otherwise the paper should be rejected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to you for pointing out various corrections to improve the quality of my manuscript.
I revised the manuscript to reflect what you pointed out, and I uploaded a file with responses to the review report.
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for the interesting paper and the research you have conducted.
In order to increase the quality of your paper I would suggest considering next remarks:
- point out the limitations of your research
- in the case of conventional stick curtain wall system the curtain wall mainly follows the seismic behavior of the building which causes the already known and in your paper mentioned issues; in the case of the newly developed fastener system the behavior of the curtain wall would rather develop a separate oscillation pattern independent of the behavior of the building which might cause a whole new set of issues as pounding, or some other issues. Have you considered these possibilities? If yes, please add that to your paper.
Best regards,
Zvonko Sigmund
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you for the advice to consider whether new set of issues may arise due to the use of developed fasteners in this paper to improve the quality of my manuscript.
I have uploaded a file containing answer to your comment.
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have carried out a major revision of the paper. This version of the manuscript is much more readable, and it is now possible to understand the whole testing procedure and the adopted numerical analysis.
All my previous concerns were addressed, and I believe that the paper is now suitable for publishing.
