Experimental Behavior of a Full-Scale Housing Section Built with Cold-Formed Steel Shear Wall Panels under Horizontal Monotonic and Cyclic Loading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please see my comments in the attached pdf file

With best regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear revisor,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing the article sent. I would like to send you my sincere apologies in the aforementioned, but it seems that it has been due to a misconfiguration of the Office software; anyway sorry for the inconvenience.

In response to your comments, I have implemented the corrections and improvements considered by you. Also, you can see additional modifications because of the commentaries of the other reviewer.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents monotonic and cyclic tests to investigate the behavior of a cold-formed steel shear wall with fibro cement panels subjected to plan shear and flexural deformations. The study results are interesting and will be a good criterion for design provisions. However, the structure, as well as the presentation of the paper, should be reviewed in-depth for publication. In the following, there are some particular comments:

1/ In the title the phrase "a Housing Section Built Full Scale" may rewrite as a Full-Scale Housing Section.

2/ In the abstract, the phrase "flexion deformation" may change to "flexural deformation".

3/ In this sentence, "Additionally, a simplified finite element model was defined with the objective to analyze stresses in the components, and to define a procedure to analyze this type of structure", which analysis procedure the authors mentioned in the last?

4/ The introduction only reviewed the literature, the gap of the previous works, the original contribution of the work is still missing. The originality of the work should be summarized in the last paragraph.

5/ Section 2.1 should be moved to the introduction part.

6/ There are many errors in the figure cation reference, and the figure order is wrong.

7/ Figure 1a should be re-drawing to best capturing.

8/ In the equations, please remove dot (.), it's not a product notation.

9/ Seism coefficient should be changed to seismic coefficient.

10/ Please use a unique decimal symbol.

11/ In Table 1, please include the paper the meaning of the mean, std, and covariance values, if they are not useful, please remove them.

12/ In the FEM model, how the material nonlinearity is included in the model.

13/ In the conclusion, "The stiffness obtained from the numeric model were higher than the ones obtained on the experimental specimen. For that reason, in the case of structural simulation the deformations obtained can be under-estimated.", are there any explanations that support this conclusion. It may come from an inaccurate numerical model.

Author Response

Dear revisor,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing the article sent. I would like to send you my sincere apologies in the aforementioned, but it seems that it has been due to a misconfiguration of the Office software; anyway sorry for the inconvenience.

In response to your comments, I have implemented the corrections and improvements considered by you. Also, you can see additional modifications because of the commentaries of the other reviewer. According to some of the indications:

3/ We referred to the numerical analysis model. We think is better to omit because doesn’t give relevant information.

4/ We have moved the introduction section to the end of the literature review, and that is the reason of this research.

5/ Implemented. Moved, as commented in point 4

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have added my comments in the attached pdf file.

With best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear revisor,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing the article sent.

In response to your comments, I have implemented the corrections and improvements considered by you.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors addressed all the Reviewer's comments and suggestions. This paper can be considered to publish in the present form.

Author Response

Dear revisor,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time spent in reviewing and accepting the article sent. I have incorporated some minor changes about traduction and numbering, requested by other reviewer.

You can find attached the final version.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf