Research on Dynamic Characteristics of Joint of RC Frame Structure with NES

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Respected,

1. in Abstract, please 1st time write what is NES,
2. Line 30 missing space after citation,
3. Line 36 missing space after Sink,
4. Line 39 not sure which kind of period is at the end of sentence?
5. Line 57 it should me MPa, not Mpa,
6. Line 58 better to write "is hown" than "was shown",
7. Why on Fig 1 there is not side view? Same for Figure 2.
8. Line 77 not sure what is 10#?
9. Line 80 - 81: 1,9 x 104 Mpa?? 
10. Line 92 no need to write again what is NES since it is allready written earlier,
11. It should be nice to make same orientation of figures 3 and 4. Also maybe to make that as one figure, no need to make two figures,
12. Table 3 please correct brackets in first row,
13. Lines 101 - 106: no Figure about testing frequencies?
14. Figure 5. Side view?
15. You used SG's for measurement, I can't se anywhere which kind of SG? Any Figure? How many of them?
16. Line 134 missing space after "pi"?
17. Lines 140, 144 and 153 missing space before brackets,
18. Line 208 steel needs to be Steel,
19. Line 209 Strain,
20. Line 237 mising space after heading numeration. This is also situation on other headings, please correct everywhere,
21. Line 280 capital in heading beginning should be,
22. You mention X and Y directions, but nowhere in Figures it is not indicated! For example in Line 306 it is mentioned,
23. At lot of places there is no space between for example equation and text. Should be corrected in hole paper,
24. In explaining variables of the equations, there is not units mentioned?


Best Regards

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article carries out a shaking table test of a 1:4 scaled RC frame structure model with a new type of NES Shock absorber, which was conducted to study the damping effects of the NES Shock absorber. This work has a particular engineering significance, but there is a little problem in the structural evaluation, which should be revised before it is considered for publication.

 

1.       What is the NES in the abstract?

2.       The introduction should be strengthened.

3.       Mpa should be MPa in Section 2.1. Please check the full paper.

4.       Line 102. Why does the frequency of NES is varied from 3.8~5.0 Hz? From Figure 4, its stiffness is very large, that is, its fundamental frequency is very high. How did you test it?

5.       Figure 6. Please add a local installation figure for the NES.

6.       Figures 7 and 8 should be drawn again.

7.       Section 3.3 steek strain should be “Steel strain”

8.       Figure. 13 in your paper are a bit indistinct. Please consider replacing them with clearer ones.

9.       In Section 4.1, the formula in line 378 is not centred. Check whether the format meets the requirements.

10.   How is the relationship between the model and the prototype derived? Please add the specific derivation process.

11.   Conclusions need more in it, as it's more of an afterthought. The authors are suggested to highlight important conclusions and include afterthoughts of this work.

 

12.   In the references, please verify that the second reference is cited correctly. It usually begins with the author's name and does not require unit information.

Author Response

Dear reviewers，

thank you for your comments on this article, I have revised the content in response to your comments, which can be found in the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting and good. The authors had made a significant contribution by studying the dynamic characteristics of Joint of RC frame structure with NES. Following are my minor suggestion.

1. Moderate English changes required.

2. Please modify the title that cover all aspects.

3. The abstract should include information about new methods, results, concepts, and conclusions – in its current form, the abstract needs to be rewritten to include more information on novelty and motivation of the work.

4. The novelty of given approach should be emphasized in introduction.

5. More precise information about used experimental and measurement positions should be provided.

6. Why is there a big difference between T1 and T5 in Figure 11(a)~(b)? Is it because there are some problems in the test.

7. Add a discussion section before conclusion regarding practical implementation of current study.

8. Conclusions should refer to specific values (results of analysis) as well as basic phenomena that cause described results.

9. References are too less and too old. Add at least 30 from recent years.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

thank you for your comments on this article, I have revised the content in response to your comments, which can be found in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made changes as requested,