Seismic Performance Comparison of Three-Type 800 m Spherical Mega-Latticed Structure City Domes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper investigated the seismic performance of three types of mega-latticed structures, with comprehensive simulation results provided. In general, the paper is well-written and has a lot of merits. The following comments should be resolved before publication:

- The introduction needs improvement. More references should be cited and reviewed. The review needs at least comprehensively review the structural types and analysis approaches adopted by other researchers. The review should eventually justify the necessity of the authors' work. 

- Line 63-65, please elaborate more about the pros and cons of the three types of structures, as well as their advantages over other types.

- Line 120-122, please provide references or justification on dividing a rod into 3 elements.

- For all the results, only record 1 is considered. Please justify its representativeness. Are the responses for the rest records showing consistent results?

- Line 408, it would be helpful to provide details of the BKIM model.

- It seems this study didn't consider the stability of the structure (e.g., elastic stability, linearized or nonlinear geometric nonlinearity). Please remove "stability analysis" from the paper.

- Some sentences or words are unclear. Line 54, it seems with the increase of structural span, there are more important issues along with the self-weight, including external loads and stability issues. Line 180, it seems "global modes" is a more frequently used terminology. 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, they are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have responsed to each of your comments in detail, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1-In section 3.3. Determination of Rayleigh damping, it is mentioned that 0.02 is usually taken for the damping ratio. Please provide Ref. for this sentence.

2-The frequency content of earthquakes is important in the analysis. On what basis and criteria were the used earthquakes selected? Are earthquakes in the near field or far field?

3-Please cite the following papers to enrich article introduction.

-Zhang, H., Liang, X., Gao, Z., & Zhu, X. (2020). Seismic performance analysis of a large-scale single-layer lattice dome with a hybrid three-directional seismic isolation system. Engineering Structures, 214, 110627.

-Abdalla, J. A., & Mohammed, A. S. (2008, October). Dynamic characteristics of large reinforced concrete domes. In The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

-Barkhordari, M. S., & Tehranizadeh, M. (2020). Ranking passive seismic control systems by their effectiveness in reducing responses of high-Rise buildings with concrete shear walls using multiple-Criteria decision making. International Journal of Engineering, 33(8), 1479-1490.

-Feizolahbeigi, A., Lourenço, P. B., Golabchi, M., Ortega, J., & Rezazadeh, M. (2021). Discussion of the role of geometry, proportion and construction techniques in the seismic behavior of 16th to 18th century bulbous discontinuous double shell domes in central Iran. Journal of Building Engineering, 33, 101575.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, they are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have responsed to each of your comments in detail, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 The research paper studied the seismic performance of the three structures by applying the time history analysis method to the 800m-span Kiewitt type, Geodesic type and Three-dimensional grid type mega-latticed structures. The following comments are recommended to improve the manuscript.

·        The novelty of the research is not clear. It is recommended to modify the abstract and the introduction highlighting the novelty of the research.

·        The language of the research is very poor. There are several grammatical, structural, and punctuation mistakes. The research must be rewritten using academic English language. A native English editor should check the paper.

·        (In this chapter) page 10 line 302 it seems that the paper is copied from a thesis without any corrections!!

·        Fig 16 Similar to the frequent earthquake cases ….. (Rewrite the sentence this is not academic English

·        Rewrite the sentence this is not academic English……After 10s, it is mainly the plastic development of 519 the members at the pyramid position and the diagonal rods between the upper chords, 520 and the trend is from the top of the structure to the supports.

·        Rewrite the sentence at the beginning of the conclusions……Based on the results of the structural selection carried out in previous studies on the 531 static and stability of the structures, t

·        Conclusions must be rewritten describing in details the novelty and methodology of the research before writing the conclusion points

·        The conclusion points are too long and must be summarized.

·        Leave a space before inserting the references during the text.

·        Most of the references are not recent. (1996,1998,2001,2003,2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,2011)

·        It is recommended to extend the literature review using recent articles from the Sustainability and other MDPI Journals.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, they are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have responsed to each of your comments in detail, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The seismic performance of a selected Kiewitt type, Geodesic type, and Three-dimensional grid type mega-latticed structures was studied by the author(s). The established finite element models used ANSYS software to conduct the modal and dynamic response analyses under frequent and occasional earthquakes. The structures were connected in three directions through the analysis of the seismic event, and structural responses were estimated by solving with the input of multi-dimensional ground motions. The amplification laws of the structural reaction were determined by comparing the static results to the responses of structures under the action of rare earthquakes. Moreover, the responses of structures under the action of frequent earthquakes to those under the action of rare earthquakes were compared. The results indicated that the top and circumferential truss elements of the structure's third and fourth rings have significant plastic development and are relatively weak structural components. The author(s) concluded that the design inside the 800m-span case should emphasise the three-dimensional grid-type spherical mega-latticed structure. The reviewer appreciates the idea presented in the manuscript. However, the reviewer has the attached comments that require Major revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions, they are helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. We have responsed to each of your comments in detail, and please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has addressed all comments

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author(s),

 

Thanks for making the required corrections.