Dynamic Response Analysis of Intake Tower-Hydrodynamic Coupling Boundary Based on SV Wave Spatial Incidence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper
‘Dynamic Response Analysis of Intake Tower-Hydrodynamic Coupling Boundary Based on SV Wave Spatial Incidence’,
By Zheng et al.,
Reports an analysis of the coupled joint seismic response of intake tower-reservoir water-foundation under oblique incidence of seismic SV (shear-vertical) waves.
In general, the specific application is peculiar and thus interesting for civil engineers. Therefore, the article may be considered for potential publication; however, the following issues, concerning both the format and the content of the manuscript, should be addressed before acceptance.
MAJOR REMARKS:
1. This reviewer's main issue with the paper is that it is purely numerical and does not include any experimental evidence.
2. Line 163. It is not clear how the very specific value (35.1°) of the critical incident angle has been obtained.
3. About the description of the FEM in Sect. 3.1. What does it mean by ‘32445 units’? does it mean 32445 elements? Also, please provide more details about the specific kind of elements used.
4. The authors used a three-dimensional dynamic equation to describe the oblique incidence of SV waves, as described in Sect. 2.2. Since no references are reported in this subsection, it is not clear if this formulation is (partially or totally) retrieved from the existing scientific literature or if it is fully a new proposal from the Authors of this article.
5. Sect. 4.4: a quantitative measure for the ‘damage degree’ should be provided.
6. Also, to provide more context, some recent works about damage detection could be mentioned. Buildings MDPI has many works published on this topic, even recent ones e.g. about the use of Instantaneous Spectral Entropy for online structural health monitoring on multi-storey structures
7. The study investigates the dynamic response characteristics of the water intake tower and the dynamic water coupling boundary under different incidence angles. However, from the results, it seems a bit peculiar that both the tensile and the compressive stress (Table 2) decrease when moving away from 0° but then increase again moving closer to 35°, even if the trend is not exactly monotonical
MINOR (EDITORIAL) REMARK:
1. The title should not be all in upper-case letters.
2. With circa 250 words, the abstract is a bit too long and could be more synthetic.
3. Line 96: the dynamic response law of the water intake tower under the oblique incidence of SV space is ‘assumed’, not ‘revealed’.
4. The legends in Figure 6 are too small to be easily readable. Similarly, the legends of Figure 8 are missing.
The entire text should be double-checked for typos and grammar mistakes. For example, on lines 92 and 163 (and elsewhere), ‘Angle’ should not be capitalised; on line 132, there are missing blank spaces after beta_p and \gamma_p; and so on.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions and comments. I agree with you very much. Please see the attachment for the specific modification
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the present paper, the seismic response of an intake tower reservoir under various angles of SV waves is investigated. Firstly, the equation of motion is given and then a structure under a single ground motion is analyzed for various angles of SV waves.
COMMENTS
· The introduction is not written correctly. It does not present the investigation and the conclusions known until now, as well as what is missing. So, the scope of the paper is not clear.
· The authors study a structure under a single ground motion and the conclusions are based on the results produced by a single ground motion. Many ground motions must be used.
· It is not clear if the authors perform linear or non-linear analysis.
· The height of the water is not given.
· The interaction of the water pressure, water ripple, and the seismic waves is unclear.
· More comments in the attached PDF file.
· A native English speaker should read the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
· A native English speaker should read the paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for specific modification details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study is a numerical investigation of the coupled joint seismic response of the intake tower reservoir water-foundation boundary under the oblique incidence of SV wave space. The topic of the study is interesting. The study is clearly described. The article merits to be published provided the following comments are addressed.
Lines 9-25: There is a jump from objectives to results in the abstract section. Please provide a brief detail of the methodology in the abstract as well.
Lines 42 and 45: Please only use the surname of the authors when referencing a study here and throughout the manuscript.
Line 55: Please consider adding the reference number after "et al." eg, ...Lin et al. [12]... here and throughout the manuscript.
Line 107 to 108: Please indicate a reference for the parameters of spring and damper components.
Line 134: It might be instructive for the reader to mention why the transformation matrix is 2 by 3.
Line 150: Please mention how the free field stress of SV1 and SV2 are provided.
Line 261: Is it really necessary to report the stresses up to three decimals?
The language used is proper.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions and comments. I agree with you very much. Please see the attachment for the specific modification
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This Reviewer is positively impressed by the detailed point-by-point response sent by the Authors.
Overall, all the main issues raised in the first round of revisions have been addressed, with specific modifications in the manuscript or with comprehensive discussions (as e.g. for the first and main remark).
The only remaining (purely editorial) minor detail is that some figures, e.g. Figure 1, seem to be a bit grainy. Perhaps their quality could be still improved.
There are also a few other typos, such as the commas at line 330 or some missing blank spaces (line 320).
After these few corrections, the paper can be definitely accepted for publication.
Some remaining typos need to be corrected at the proofreading stage.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment for specific modification details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the most corrections and modifications proposed by the reviewers. There are some secondary comments in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your opinion, and I agree with you. Please see the attachment for specific modification details
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
