Seismic Performance of Panel Connectors with Steel Frame Based on Autoclaved Lightweight Concrete (ALC)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article Seismic Performance of Panel Connectors with Steel Frame
Based on Autoclaved Lightweight Concrete (ALC) presents well planned experimental program. 

The article is well written, few suggestions are given below to improve the qualiyt of the article.

1. Please inlcude some siginifacant results in terms of quantitative form in the abstract.
2. The last paragraph of the introduction is not necessary.
3. Figure 1, please include legengs in figures.
4. Figure 2, there are many uncessary details and small view.
5. Figure 3, what red circles are highlighting?
6. Figure 4 need revision.
7. When the displacement angle reached 1/40 (±75 mm cycle), the corners of each panel broke so as to the holes of the L-hooked head bolts under No.4 and No.5 panel appeared an extended cracks at bolt holes....There is no justification.
8. Some reasons are required for the observed cracks or failures for all specimens.
9. Section 4.4, there is need to consider comparison with the previous studies.
10. Conclusions are too long.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The issues are presented in the article: „Seismic Performance of Panel Connectors with Steel Frame” are interesting. This paper presents the results of the new prefabricated autoclaved lightweight concrete (ALC) connectors which allowed limited sliding. Authors then the seismic performance of the proposed connectors and traditional connector (L-hooked bolt) were investigated in depth. The experimental results indicated that the frames of new connectors were reliable than traditional one.

I agree with the authors, that the new ALC connectors could provide a reference for the development and application of a new type of ALC steel frame connector. Reviver agrees, with authors too, that the analyses presented in this study, underline the need to further analyse.  

The paper is relatively in good format. Thus, the reviewer is glad to consider again this manuscript for publication after the authors properly address the below comments.

Comments:

1. The language throughout the introduction is often very vague and unclear. Present format is little weaker lack of highlighting gap in knowledge information.
2. Please, provide the standard test methods used for the experiments. The methodology of "compressive strength" is unclear. Preparation of samples for testing and the results are debatable. What standards did the methodology and testing machine meet? There is no statistical analysis. You should comment on that.
3. The manuscript needs a major improvement in terms of presentation and descriptions of the various figures. Must be improved.
4. The paper can benefit from a minor editorial work up to check up spelling and any grammatical issues.
5. What about the danger in a fire situation? Authors should to comment on that. This part should be aded.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Explain what this standard A3.5 B05 line 135 is
What is the name of standard GB / T 228 line 164

Other notes are in the file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer appreciates the efforts to revise the manuscript. The authors have revised Introduction and provide the standard test methods used for the experiments. The methodology of "compressive strength" at present article is clear. The authors supplemented the article (partly expanded the discussion of the results). The conclusions obtained from the research are clear and concise, and correspond to the results.

Comments:

The text should be organized in accordance with the requirements of the editorial office: tables, figures, references. The paper can benefit from a minor editorial work up to check up spelling and any grammatical issues.

The issues discussed in the paper are current and important from the scientific and practical point of view. This work is interesting and well in the scope of the Journal, upon addressing the above comments, it should be ready for publication.