Development of Innovative Lateral Resistance Systems Featuring Earthquake-Protective Dampers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A re-review of the manuscript is required.

1) The last part of Abstract should be improved. It is suggested to extend and better highlight (in a very synthetic way) the main novel results obtained in this study.

2) At the end of Introduction, the main purpose and steps of the study are shortly summarized. However, the main novelty aspects of the study should be better explained and discussed.

3) Line 35. Considering the topic investigated in this study, it is suggested to mention, near references [4-8], the following reference dealing with an innovative dissipative device based on replaceable braced ductile shear panel fuse:

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000814

4) Table 1 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the table.

5) Table 3 and Table 4 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the tables.

6) Figure 3 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the figure.

7) Figure 6 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the figure.

8) Figure 7 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the figure.

9) Line 263-264. Better explain the sentence (specify the “two lateral resisting structures”).

10) Line 265. What is “07”?

Line 273. What is “05 design force”?

Line 279. What is “08”?

11) Table 5. The forces are given in “kips”. Please, use “kN”, as done in the remaining parts of the paper.

Moreover, the results provided in Table 5 should be better described and explained in the text.

12) Figure 9 should be mentioned in the text, along with a short explanation of the figure.

13) Line 54. Considering the topic investigated in this study, it is suggested to mention, near references [14,15], the following paper dealing with replaceable steel fuses for improving the seismic performance of steel structures:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2016.09.003

14) Conclusions (Section 6) can be improved, better highlighting the main strengths and some novel results of the study.

15) At the end of Conclusions, some recommendations for future work should be included.

16) The manuscript is characterized by a low quality of English language. A deep and extensive revision of the text is required.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments; please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the conventional eccentrically braced systems are investigated and reestablished, and the effects of shear fuses use in high-rise buildings are investigated for prototype buildings by implementing the verified simulations. Next, seismic protective fuse systems with innovative dampers with several butterfly-shaped shear links are established. Ultimately, the design guidelines are established based on which the conventional EBF systems are redesigned with the use of noble seismic protective fuses, and hysteretic behavior are obtained and compared accordingly. In general, the topic is interesting, and a few questions are required to be well handled.

1. The authors performed the survey of novel lateral resisting systems, which is a great work. The reviewer suggests to focus more on the short comings of the existing references. The following papers related to the energy dissipation and lateral systems can be included into the Intro. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104904; 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.113982; 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109838

2. In the guideline design procedures for butterfly-shaped links, the reviewer suggests to add a flowchart or something else to give a clear procedure of the design steps.

3. The authors mentioned the innovative lateral resisting systems, the reviewer thinks the ‘innovation’ is not distinct and should be further enhanced, e.g., construction innovation, function innovation or energy dissipation innovation.

4. In the finite element modeling methodology, the reviewer suggests to add more modelling details, such as the numerical elements, materials or boundary constraints.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer.

The revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.

1) A general revision of the text is still required to furtherly improve the quality of English language and to correct some typos.

Some examples of correction:

Line 23. Replace “dissipation energy” with “energy dissipation”

Line 41. Replace “concentrated” with “concentrate”

Line 61. Replace “increase” with “increases”

Line 66. Replace “fuses; These” with “fuses. These”

2) Line 426. Two papers are reported as Reference 9. The first paper (Giannuzzi….) is Reference 9, whereas the second paper (Castaldo….) should be numbered as Reference 10 (and the next references should be re-numbered).

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

The authors have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer.

The revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.

The authors would like to extend their appreciation for reviewing this work.

1) A general revision of the text is still required to furtherly improve the quality of English language and to correct some typos.

Some examples of correction:

Line 23. Replace “dissipation energy” with “energy dissipation”
Following the reviewer’s comment, this part was edited.

Line 41. Replace “concentrated” with “concentrate”
Following the reviewer’s comment, this part was edited.

Line 61. Replace “increase” with “increases”
Following the reviewer’s comment, this part was edited.

Line 66. Replace “fuses; These” with “fuses. These”
Following the reviewer’s comment, this part was edited.

2) Line 426. Two papers are reported as Reference 9. The first paper (Giannuzzi….) is Reference 9, whereas the second paper (Castaldo….) should be numbered as Reference 10 (and the next references should be re-numbered).
Following the reviewer’s comment, the list of references was updated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved and now it can be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer #2
The paper has been improved and now it can be accepted.

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx