Structural Systems for Tall Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this entry, Ali and Al-Kodmany perform a very nice review of the main structural systems for tall building design and construction, providing a comprehensive historical account and description of the evolution of these systems, ranging from the simplest moment-resisting frames up to the most recent tubular systems, such as diagrids and superframes. All structural systems are briefly described, with their advantages, drawbacks, and most notable applications succinctly reported. The pictures inserted all over the manuscript, both as sketches or real photographs, help the readers to understand the difference between the various structural systems and how these can transmit different architectural and aesthetic value to the building.

In my opinion, the manuscript is very interesting and well written, and it can be accepted for publication in Encyclopedia after minor revisions.

Specifically:

(1) “1985” at line 31 should actually be “1885”.

(2) At lines 244-246, it is written “However, after a few recent earthquakes, it has been observed that shear walls keep the buildings stable against total collapse and may be beneficial for residential buildings to ensure increased safety of occupants”. Can you provide some references about these observations?

(3) In Section 3.7.1, dealing with superframes, you talk both of the conception from Goldsmith and of the one from F. Khan. In Figure 10 you provide an example highlighting the conception from Khan. It would be nice to also add a pictorial representation of the conception from Goldsmith in the same figure.

(4) In Figure 14, the authors write that this figure is a sketch of the second author. However, this figure is exactly the same as Figure 1c from Lacidogna et al. “Influence of the geometrical shape on the structural behavior of diagrid tall buildings under lateral and torque actions”, Dev. Built. Env. 2, 100009, 2020, and Figure 1a from Lacidogna et al. “Optimization of diagrid geometry based on the desirability function approach”, Curv. Lay. Struct. 7, 139-152, 2020. Please, acknowledge the reference where you took the picture from.

(5) Finally, in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the authors deal with general charts, either based on a height- or system-based representation, that classify structural systems for tall buildings. In my opinion, it would be nice if you inserted some graphical representations of these charts in this section.

According to what said above, the reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after the described minor revisions.

Author Response

In this entry, Ali and Al-Kodmany perform a very nice review of the main structural systems for tall building design and construction, providing a comprehensive historical account and description of the evolution of these systems, ranging from the simplest moment-resisting frames up to the most recent tubular systems, such as diagrids and superframes. All structural systems are briefly described, with their advantages, drawbacks, and most notable applications succinctly reported. The pictures inserted all over the manuscript, both as sketches or real photographs, help the readers to understand the difference between the various structural systems and how these can transmit different architectural and aesthetic value to the building.

In my opinion, the manuscript is very interesting and well written, and it can be accepted for publication in Encyclopedia after minor revisions.

Specifically:

(1) “1985” at line 31 should actually be “1885”.

Authors’ Response: Corrected.

(2) At lines 244-246, it is written “However, after a few recent earthquakes, it has been observed that shear walls keep the buildings stable against total collapse and may be beneficial for residential buildings to ensure increased safety of occupants”. Can you provide some references about these observations?

Authors’ Response: We have added the following references:

Fintel, M., “Shear Walls—An Answer for Seismic Resistance?” Concrete International, Volume 13, No. 7, 1991, pp. 48-53.

Fintel, M., “Performance of Buildings with shear walls in Earthquakes of the Last Thirty Years,” PCI Journal, 1995, pp. 62-80

Rajendran, R. and Roja Selvaraju, Y., “A Review on Performance of Shear Walls,” International Journal of Applied Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 3, 2016, pp. 369-373.

(3) In Section 3.7.1, dealing with superframes, you talk both of the conception from Goldsmith and of the one from F. Khan. In Figure 10 you provide an example highlighting the conception from Khan. It would be nice to also add a pictorial representation of the conception from Goldsmith in the same figure.

Authors’ Response: Indeed, it would be nice to include it. We have tried very hard to access it but with no luck. It is part of a master’s thesis by Goldsmith in the early 1950s, about 70 years ago. We went through IIT archival system and unfortunately could not get it. However, we feel that the illustration is not crucial to the paper, and the included illustrations and work of Fazlur Khan will suffice.   

(4) In Figure 14, the authors write that this figure is a sketch of the second author. However, this figure is exactly the same as Figure 1c from Lacidogna et al. “Influence of the geometrical shape on the structural behavior of diagrid tall buildings under lateral and torque actions”, Dev. Built. Env. 2, 100009, 2020, and Figure 1a from Lacidogna et al. “Optimization of diagrid geometry based on the desirability function approach”, Curv. Lay. Struct. 7, 139-152, 2020. Please, acknowledge the reference where you took the picture from.

Authors’ Response: We have mentioned now in the caption that it is adapted from the mentioned reference:

Lacidogna, G., Scaramozzino, D., and Carpinteri, A. “Influence of the geometrical shape on the structural behavior of diagrid tall buildings under lateral and torque actions,” Developments in the Built environment 2, 2020.

(5) Finally, in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, the authors deal with general charts, either based on a height- or system-based representation, that classify structural systems for tall buildings. In my opinion, it would be nice if you inserted some graphical representations of these charts in this section.

Authors’ Response: We had it in our original draft. However, the publisher asked us to remove it because it was published earlier in a different paper, reference for which is in our paper.

According to what said above, the reviewer’s opinion is that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after the described minor revisions.

Authors’ Response: Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article seems interesting, but I think that the analysis carried out should be analyzed and compared with a calculation of finite elements. To check the results of the analyzed proposals.

Author Response

The article seems interesting, but I think that the analysis carried out should be analyzed and compared with a calculation of finite elements. To check the results of the analyzed proposals.

Authors’ Response: This is an interesting comment. However, this paper focuses on comprehensively reviewing the structural systems used for tall buildings in the past and present. It does not aim to engage in quantitative analysis, calculation, and finite element analysis. Future research may build on our review paper, advance, and compare using sophisticated computational tools.

Reviewer 3 Report

·        The language is not suitable and should be highly improved. The article still needs several grammatical and syntax improvements. Use of English service center is recommended.

·        The abstract is written rather qualitatively. Majority of the qualitative statements should be modified for quantified result comparisons.  

·        The introduction needs to be revised for higher quality language. The authors mentioned some works without stating about the contributions, pros and cons and the how the current work would address.

·        Since the article is summary of the previous work, it has limited reference list, the following reference should be considered and added for comprehensiveness of the work with the most updated study:

·        Farzampour, A.; Eatherton, M. R. Yielding and lateral torsional buckling limit states for butterfly-shaped shear links. Engineering Structures, 2019, 180, pp. 442-451.

Author Response

The language is not suitable and should be highly improved. The article still needs several grammatical and syntax improvements. Use of English service center is recommended.

The abstract is written rather qualitatively. Majority of the qualitative statements should be modified for quantified result comparisons.  

The introduction needs to be revised for higher quality language. The authors mentioned some works without stating about the contributions, pros and cons and the how the current work would address

Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for the notes concerning the language. We have made some revisions and editing in the Introduction and throughout the paper. We have also used software (Grammarly) to check on and correct any English language grammatical and spelling mistakes. Overall, this is a technical paper, and we have tried to make sentences easily readable. The paper does not engage in presenting the quantitative aspects as it intends to offer an overview of the concepts and applications illustrating the progression of the structural systems for tall buildings. We hope that future rearch will build on our paper and review past quantitative analysis and perform more sophisticated analysis.

Since the article is summary of the previous work, it has limited reference list, the following reference should be considered and added for comprehensiveness of the work with the most updated study.

Farzampour, A.; Eatherton, M. R. Yielding and lateral torsional buckling limit states for butterfly-shaped shear links. Engineering Structures, 2019, 180, pp. 442-451.

Authors’ Response: Thanks for sharing the reference. It represents very interesting work, though not directly related to this paper. As such, we added it in the Further Reading list at the end of the paper. 

Farzampour, A.; Eatherton, M. R. Yielding and lateral torsional buckling limit states for butterfly-shaped shear links. Engineering Structures, 2019, 180, pp. 442-451.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is a comprehensive overview of the structural systems for tall buildings, starting from the first examples in the history of the architecture, to the solutions adopted more recently.

I have found the paper interesting and well written, and I think that it is suitable for the publication in Encyclopedia, advising for only two minor revisions:
1) considering the subject of the paper, the references should be substantially expanded

2) page 1, line 31: correct 1985 in 1885

Author Response

The paper is a comprehensive overview of the structural systems for tall buildings, starting from the first examples in the history of the architecture, to the solutions adopted more recently.

I have found the paper interesting and well written, and I think that it is suitable for the publication in Encyclopedia, advising for only two minor revisions:

1) considering the subject of the paper, the references should be substantially expanded

Authors’ Response: We have added references in the body of text and additional references in the Further Readings list.

2) page 1, line 31: correct 1985 in 1885

Authors’ Response: Corrected. Thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my previous comments. In my opinion, the paper can now be accepted for publication in Encyclopedia.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the article, appropriately.

Reviewer 3 Report

The work still very weak and unacceptable. The authors have not improved the work by any standards. So many technical and linguistic mistakes are within the article. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Now, for the manuscript is fine.