Comparative Assessment of Shear Demand for RC Beam-Column Joints under Earthquake Loading
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Through the application of some methods (Modal Response Spectrum, Non-Linear Static Analysis and Non-Linear Time History), the article presents a set of comparisons for shear demand for RC beam-column joints under earthquake loading. Such comparisons are justified by the different values provided by the application of the specifications of national technical standards (European, North American and Australian).
The work is scientifically well structured, supported by relevant references on the subject and correctly developed.
However, it is believed that the description of the application of automatic calculation tools (computer programs) is very succinct and, therefore, should be presented with more modeling details (finite element types, discretization, boundary conditions, etc.), the that would add more quality to the article.
Attached is a file with minor spelling corrections.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The attached file contains our replies to your comments.
AM, GM
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled “Comparative Assessment of Shear Demand for RC Beam-Column Joints under Earthquake Loading” presented a numerical study considering a notorious benchmark in the context of RC structures against earthquake loading, i.e., the SPEAR frame., and focuses on shear demand at beam-column joints and on the differences between the estimated shear demand considering modal-response-spectrum analysis, non-linear static analysis, and non-linear time history.
COMMENTS
Some editing of the English language and style is required.
E.g.,
Lines 2-3: … different structural analysis methods which share the same seismic input.
Lines 2-3: The joints are modeled as rigid offsets of beams and columns.
Lines 2-3: …., and non-linear time history
ETC.
An optional comment is to add some color in Figs 1-12.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The attached file contains our replies to your comments.
AM, GM
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments:
The paper focuses on the shear demand at beam-column joints. In the three-dimensional numerical model, beam-column joints were modeled with rigid offsets, flexural type plastic hinges were assumed as inelastic sources both for beams and columns. Different method for structural analysis were employed such as MRSA, NLSA, NLTH. The shear strengths evaluated according to different building codes targeted to existing structures were also presented. The study is of great use for both researchers and engineers. The following issues and concerns would prevent the manuscript from being published in the current state:
1. Line 1, please include the main conclusions of this study in the Abstract.
2. Line 94, how does Equation 5 turn into Equation 6?
3. Line 116, those symbols do not appear for the first time in the manuscript, they should be explained above.
4. Line 130 and 343, there are differences in the three different building codes targeted to the assessment of existing structures. The results of the three different building codes are significantly different, which can be seen from Table 4 and Figure 17. Can the authors get any findings that are helpful for the joint design?
5. Line 340, the authors simply presented the results of different building codes, is there any deeper conclusion drawn?
6. Line 368, the conclusions are superficial, is there any deeper discovery?
7. Line 387, it is not the authors' conclusion from this study that NLSA can not compute accurately local response quantities.
There are many other general issues, not limited to the following problems. The authors are asked to exclude similar problems in the full manuscript.
8. The language needs to be refined, and some issues need to be fixed.
9. Line 49, Vjh or Vjh?
10. Line 59, Tr or TR?
11. Normal and italic fonts in Figure 3 should be distinguished.
12. The difference of font size in some pictures is too large, such as Figure 5, 9, 11, 13, 17, etc.
13. Figure 17, please explain the reason of no results of the NLTH method.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The attached file contains our replies to your comments.
AM, GM
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This analytical research paper presents an interesting work on the beam-column joints’ shear behavior while subjected to earthquake loading. The authors used the SPEAR frame as a benchmark and researched the seismic impact with various structural analysis methods. The paper is definitely interesting and important for the community of scientists and structural engineers working in this field.
The authors reviewed the state-of-art report, recalling fundamental works in the field. This part is very well-structured and organized. The report recalls historical state and standards but also relates the recent achievements in the field.
The analytical part is well-planned and executed. It is very well discussed and summarized with quantitative arguments in chapter 4. Concussions are formed in the correct, clear form.
The authors do draw a line toward further research needs which is worth mentioning.
The paper is well-written in English, draws and tables are clear to the reader. The paper is edited on a very high level.
There is one minor issue connected with the formatting – the Tables and Figures should be placed in the text, according to the editorial demands:
Microsoft Word: Manuscripts prepared in Microsoft Word must be converted into a single file before submission. When preparing manuscripts in Microsoft Word, we encourage you to use the Applied Sciences Microsoft Word template file. Please insert your graphics (schemes, figures, etc.) in the main text after the paragraph of its first citation.
Also, the Authors use footnotes (page 2, v. 81 and 83 and further in the text, till p. 7, v. 322), which is not being predicted by the Template and practiced in the Journal.
Therefore, whole References should be re-formatted accordingly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The attached file contains our replies to your comments.
AM, GM
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the issues in the first-round report, and this manuscript is suggested to be accepted as is.
