Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

No.	Comment
1	Have you considered using a more advanced 3D modelling software? I suggest adding a few sentences on why was SAP2000 your choice for this investigation.
2	The structure of the manuscript is poor. I strongly suggest following the typical structure of research articles which include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections.
3	The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. Most of the references used by the authors are not considered recent. I strongly suggest using more recent references.
4	Line 130-133: “the beam-column rigid connection of TSF and the beam-column hinge connection of ASFWREE, GKZ1 represents the steel frame column, GKL-1 represents the steel frame beam, and HNYJ represents the energy consumption element. The two project cases is simulated to construct for office buildings at a certain area in Shanghai” A section addressing the verification and feasibility of the SAP2000 models is necessary. How did the authors ensure the models are accurate representations of the buildings? This is a crucial part of the study that needs to be discussed in the manuscript.
5	The Abstract and Conclusion sections should include a quantitative comparison between (TSF) and (ASFWREE).
6	The research gap is not presented in the manuscript. The introduction section should clearly state the research gap and justify selection of the main purpose of the research.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Have you considered using a more advanced 3D modelling software? I suggest adding a few sentences on why was SAP2000 your choice for this investigation.

 

Response 1: More advanced 3D modeling software, such as ABAQUS, has been considered. The main reason for choosing SAP2000 is that it can meet the following requirements: (1) Although ABAQUS is more sophisticated, its calculation cost is high, and the calculation accuracy of SAP2000 can meet the requirements of this paper; (2) In addition to comparing the natural vibration period and other indexes under frequent earthquakes, this paper mainly solves the indexes such as the maximum vertex displacement under rare earthquakes and the sequence of plastic hinges. See the supplement of lines 99~104 for details.

 

Point 2: The structure of the manuscript is poor. I strongly suggest following the typical structure of research articles which include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections.

 

Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments. The main modifications are as follows: (1) The summary part supplements the quantitative comparison differences and conclusions between TSF and ASFWREE; (2) In the introduction, the applicability of SAP2000 is supplemented and some parts are deleted; (3) Part 3.3 is supplemented, and the selection of materials and methods is supplemented; (4) The conclusion part supplements the results of quantitative comparison.

 

Point 3: The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. Most of the references used by the authors are not considered recent. I strongly suggest using more recent references.

 

Response 3: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! (1) This paper mainly discusses according to the following logic: TSF has the advantages of wide application, but also has the disadvantages of on-site welding and non-replaceable joints, and the recoverable functional structure is a good way and advanced idea to make up for these shortcomings, thus leading to a form of recoverable functional structure, that is, the structure with replaceable elements. (2) Structures with replaceable elements are currently being studied, and each structure has its advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, aiming at the beam-column joint with replaceable energy-dissipating elements proposed by the author, it has the triple advantages of fully assembled structure, excellent seismic performance and the ability to achieve beam-column hinge, and demonstrates its progressiveness application in engineering; (3) The references cited in this paper are mainly based on the above logic and novel research aspects.

 

Point 4: Line 130-133: “the beam-column rigid connection of TSF and the beam-column hinge connection of ASFWREE, GKZ1 represents the steel frame column, GKL-1 represents the steel frame beam, and HNYJ represents the energy consumption element. The two project cases is simulated to construct for office buildings at a certain area in Shanghai” A section addressing the verification and feasibility of the SAP2000 models is necessary. How did the authors ensure the models are accurate representations of the buildings? This is a crucial part of the study that needs to be discussed in the manuscript.

 

Response 4: The numerical calculation and analysis in this paper are mainly used to solve the indexes such as the natural vibration period under more frequent earthquakes, the maximum vertex displacement under rare earthquakes, and the order of plastic hinges. In the calculation and analysis of SAP2000 model, the geometric parameters are based on the design requirements of two engineering cases, the physical parameters are based on the selected materials, the steel beams and columns are simulated by frame elements, and the floors are simulated by shell elements. In the calculation and analysis of plastic hinge, P-M-M hinge is used to simulate the steel column, and M3 hinge is used to simulate the steel beam and energy dissipation element. See Section 3.3 for supplement.

 

Point 5: The Abstract and Conclusion sections should include a quantitative comparison between (TSF) and (ASFWREE).

 

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. The following quantitative conclusions are supplemented in the abstract and conclusion: (1) The deviation of the main index such as natural vibration period is less than 5% when the linear stiffness of the energy-dissipating element and the steel beam is approximately 0.8, the ratio to the span of the steel beam is 0.25 or so, and the strength grade of the steel beam and is close; (2) when the linear stiffness of the energy dissipation element and the steel beam is about 0.8, the ratio to the span of the steel beam is about 0.25, and the strength grade of the steel beam is close, the maximum shear deviation is within 10%, the maximum peak displacement is within 5%, and the inter-story displacement angle is within 15% compared with the TSF.

 

Point 6: The research gap is not presented in the manuscript. The introduction section should clearly state the research gap and justify selection of the main purpose of the research.

 

Response 6: Thank you very much for your comments. The introduction part has added the differences between the two studies, which are mainly as follows: (1) ASFWREE has three advantages in application: fully assembled, replaceable and hinged beam-column; (2) In terms of seismic performance, ASFWREE has better seismic performance. The rationality of the research purpose is mainly based on the following considerations: (1) under frequent earthquakes, the main indicators such as natural vibration period are close to or better; (2) Under rare earthquakes, the main indicators such as the maximum peak displacement are more superior, and the position and sequence of plastic hinges are better than TSF, that is, beams and columns do not appear all the time, and it is easy to realize that the structure does not collapse.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Proof read the paper carefully because there are formatting errors. For examples in line 114 there is an extra bracket, in line 152 2 should be a superscript, the symbol of “□” in table 1 and table 2 is different.

 

Response 1: The three issues mentioned have been addressed, and the full text has been rechecked and revised.

 

Point 2: In the 3rd paragraph of the introduction, a number of researches conducted by other researchers are listed. You stated the contribution of each paper and illustrated the insufficiencies. However, the end of this paragraph stated the innovation of this paper is “combining with engineering”. Is it coincident with the previously mentioned insufficiencies? Moreover, stating the contributions instead of insufficiencies one by one by other researchers is better.

 

Response 2: In response to the comments, the following modifications were made: (1) "Combining with the project" was put in the fourth paragraph as a further demonstration of innovation; (2) Other researchers are not enough to lead to the innovation of this paper.

 

Point 3: In line 138, you stated “In the calculation, the combined effect of the floor slab and the steel beam is not considered” Did you consider the floor slab since its weight occupies a significant proportion for the building.

 

Response 3: The floor is considered in the structural calculation. The expression is not accurate, and it is changed to "In the calculation of beams, the combined effect of floors and steel beams is not considered".

 

Point 4: The Beam-column joints replaced by the energy-dissipating element contain a hinge and bolts. How did you deal with them in the simulation?

 

Response 4: In the numerical simulation, the connection between the energy dissipation element and the steel column is set as rigid connection, and the connection with the steel beam is set as hinge; In the joint design, the joint between the energy dissipation element and the steel column shall be rechecked and calculated according to the calculated bending moment, axial force and shear force, and meet the bearing requirements; The connection node between the energy dissipation element and the steel beam is calculated according to the calculated axial force and shear force, and meets the bearing requirements. The above description has been added to the text. See Section 3.3 for supplement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 The paper is interesting, but I have some questions/comments.

 1. The current state of the studied problem (1. Introduction) must be presented with detailed references to each cited source and not by general references such as [1-3], [4-7], etc. Several newer references are needed here to justify the opportunity and novelty of the study presented by the authors.

2. The quality of all figures must be improved. Font size of the figures must be comparable to that of the paper’s text and the same for all figures. A higher resolution of figures (minimum 600 dpi) is required.

3. Editing of the article must be done in compliance with the journal's requirements. For example, Tables 1 and 2 are different, meaning that the drafting instructions were not carefully followed.

4. In Figures 27-32, the notations E, D, ..., B are not explained.

5. English is good, but a check-up of the punctuation and spelling should always be done in order to ensure the best reading experience.

 

Recommendation: careful revision of the manuscript and resubmission.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: The current state of the studied problem (1. Introduction) must be presented with detailed references to each cited source and not by general references such as [1-3], [4-7], etc. Several newer references are needed here to justify the opportunity and novelty of the study presented by the authors.

 

Response 1: Mainly based on the following considerations: (1) [1-3] and [4-7] are comprehensive expressions for one type; (2) The latest references are appropriately supplemented.

 

Point 2: The quality of all figures must be improved. Font size of the figures must be comparable to that of the paper’s text and the same for all figures. A higher resolution of figures (minimum 600 dpi) is required.

 

Response 2: The main modifications are as follows: (1) The font size of the number is consistent with the text; (2) Unified font of numbers; (3) The resolution of the image is increased to 1200 dpi.

 

Point 3: Editing of the article must be done in compliance with the journal's requirements. For example, Tables 1 and 2 are different, meaning that the drafting instructions were not carefully followed.

 

Response 3: The issues mentioned have been addressed, and the full text has been rechecked and revised.

 

Point 4: In Figures 27-32, the notations E, D, ..., B are not explained.

 

Response 4: In lines 314-318, the explanation has been added.

 

Point 5: English is good, but a check-up of the punctuation and spelling should always be done in order to ensure the best reading experience.

 

Response 5: Thank you very much for your comments. I have rechecked the full text and made corresponding modifications, such as the red mark in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The responses from  the authors were satisfying and addressed all my points. However, English of the manuscript needs improvement before final publication

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The responses from  the authors were satisfying and addressed all my points. However, English of the manuscript needs improvement before final publication

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comments! The full text has been checked and modified in detail, as shown in purple.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf