Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper converts wind tunnel pressure histories (TPU database) into full-scale equivalent wind loads, performs ETABS preliminary design and OpenSees nonlinear time-history analysis, and systematically evaluates a coupled shear wall system across multiple hazard levels. A 60% reduction in peak roof drift is achieved with only a 4.29% concrete volume increase. The multi-metric framework and DDI-based local damage detection are the paper's primary contributions. Main weaknesses lie in insufficient justification of key assumptions and a few data-consistency issues.

I recommend publication after the authors address the following specific points.

1. The 2D idealization (lines 192–208) is justified by symmetry and rigid diaphragm assumptions but moment–axial coupling and out-of-plane slab effects on wall axial forces are not quantified. Please provide a comparison with at least a 3D model for the governing direction, or cite published validation studies that bound the accuracy of this simplification for coupled-wall systems.
2. The 0° direction is selected because it governs global response (line 353), yet the text acknowledges that local demands may differ under oblique wind (lines 354–356), while all performance evaluation of the modified design still uses 0° only. Please provide DDI and acceleration comparisons for at least one representative oblique direction (e.g., 45°), or quantitative evidence that 0° also bounds localized damage for all other angles.
3. The legend in Fig. 13 is truncated ("DDI along wind Modif…"), the x-axis floor labels are incomplete, and the y-axis lacks a unit/dimension label. Please reformat the legend and complete all axis annotations.
4. The 4.29% figure (lines 182, 509) is stated without derivation. Please provide the volume calculation for the 5 cm wall thickening and 10 cm coupling-beam deepening in the text or an appendix, so the claim can be independently verified.
5. The conclusion (lines 528–536) presents the optimization strategy's effectiveness in broad terms, yet the methodology is constrained to a single isolated building with a square plan, H/D = 3, and specific material parameters. Please explicitly bound the findings to this configuration and identify the key variables that would need to be re-examined for taller buildings or different plan geometries.
6. Equation (5) is not explicitly referenced in the body text; please add a citation and brief discussion where appropriate.

 

Author Response

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the careful review and insightful comments. A detailed point-by-point response to all remarks is provided in the attached document.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the nonlinear wind-induced behavior of a 20-story RC frame-wall structure, demonstrating that targeted increases in wall and coupling beam stiffness can substantially improve serviceability and reduce localized damage with only a modest increase in material usage. The paper is well-written and interesting. I invite authors to consider the following comments:

1. The optimized design appears to be derived from a manual trial and error rather than from an optimization process. Therefore, I'm unsure if the optimal designs are truly optimal.
2.  Structural modification changes building stiffness and loading, yet the same wind load is used before and after "optimization," which poses some concerns
3. The research uses a quasi-static cyclic experiment for validation, but I do not think that validation  can justify whether the modeling approach is suitable for long-duration stochastic wind loading
4. By considering only one building, I'm not sure if the conclusions are applicable in a broad sense. I invite authors to reframe the paper and its conclusion to avoid overpromising, given the limited case study approach. 

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the valuable comments and constructive suggestions. Detailed responses to each remark are provided in the attached response file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comment and I can recommend their work for publication