Experimental Investigation into Failure Modes of Low-Yield-Point Steel Plate Shear Walls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well written and detailed. I recommend accepting the paper after making some modifications as follows.
1-In line 101, change the word "Figure" into "Figures".
2-Figure 21 should be using different colors to make it easier to trace the curves.
3-In line 404, change the word "Figure" into "Figures".
4-The type and characteristics of weld used to collect the samples that did not cause the type of failure to be a separation of the weld between the plate and the column should be mentioned.
5-The reviewer was looking forward to having a test that includes two types of loads together (horizontal load with vertical load). In order to show the effect of vertical loads with the horizontal loads. It would have been a great addition to the research paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Regarding to the paper entitled “Experimental investigation into failure modes of low-yield-point steel plate shear walls” that has been submitted to Applied Sciences, here in follow some explanations in this matter are presented.
- Article innovation should be more explained clearly in comparison with other research works.
- Explain more about advantages and disadvantages of The LYP SPSW in comparison with other lateral force resistance systems.
- Explain more detailed characteristics of Low-yield-point (LYP) steel in the manuscript.
- Explain more about number of suitable samples utilized for testing.
- Explain more about cyclic loads in Section 2.
- Explain more about geometric specifications and connection conditions of device.
- Explain and compare more about costs of using this material in engineering works.
- Explain more interpretation and conclusion of results.
- Provide more references from recent years in relation to this topic.
- The English language of this manuscript should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
This paper studied the performance of LYP SPSW with experiments. The contents would be acceptable to publish, but the presentation needs at a significant level. There are too many figures which are less valuable to present. The reviewer attaches a file with comments. Please check them and improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Regarding to the revised paper entitled “Experimental investigation into failure modes of low-yield-point steel plate shear walls” that has been submitted to Applied Sciences, here in follow some explanations in this matter are presented.
- The whole issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments must be addressed well by authors in the new version of the manuscript.
- The issues of English language grammar to be re-checked carefully.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.
We have carefully considered the comments from reviewer 2 and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, and the found typos and grammar errors have been corrected by author. All issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments have been properly addressed in the new version of the manuscript. Thank you very much for your comments!
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Page 1. Research are just plural. There is no such word 'RESERACHES'. Please catch the reviewer's point up properly.
2. Thank you for pointing this out. Since the current demand for low yield point steel supply was not extensive and only 8 mm thick plates were available, the low yield point steel plate material used in the test was 8 mm thick. -> Do not merely respond to the reviewer's comments in the note. Update the answer to the manuscript. My question is the question that the potential audience also wants to know.
3. Thank you for pointing this out. Table 2 presents the detailed sizes of different geometric parameters of the coupons, and three tensile coupons with the actually measured sizes listed in Table 3 were tested for the LYP steel with the nominal yield strength of 100MPa. -> The reviewer is aware that they are measured values. This paper has 23 paginations. Very long. I think this is because of unnecessary contents like Table 3. The measurements indicated almost identical values. The reviewer repeats the comments. Is this table really needed? instead of a narrative description in the manuscript?
4,. Thank you for your nice suggestion. The corresponding modification is as follows:
Table 5 has been added to the manuscript (Table 5. Measured displacement under the first five loading levels.). -> Provide the changed version.
5. Thank you for your constructive suggestions. Here the format we are laying out is based on the template file (applsci-template.dot). -> My comment is about the y margin. For example, y margins are 15000 and 12000 for Fig. 19a and Fig. 19b, respectively. Same for comment on Fig. 20. Please catch the reviewer's point up properly.
6. Thank you for your nice suggestion. After our consideration, the corresponding modification is as follows: 'Variation of the first principal stress inclination angle in the wall panel' -> My comment is related to the typo (Levles). It is Levels. I will reject this submission if the reviewer sees an additional typo.
Author Response
We would like to thank you for your helpful comments and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.
The responses to your kind and careful reviews on round 1 was directly marked on the PDF version of the original manuscript rather than the revised one for your convenient reading, and the revised paper was uploaded to the resubmitted system. I'm sorry that it has brought about your misunderstanding.
As for the responses on round 2, the details are as follows. Please see the following attachment for the revised manuscript.
Question 1. Page 1. Research are just plural. There is no such word 'RESERACHES'. Please catch the reviewer's point up properly.
Answer: This is a mistake in my work and it has been corrected. The expression of “researches” is replaced by “research”.
Question 2. Thank you for pointing this out. Since the current demand for low yield point steel supply was not extensive and only 8 mm thick plates were available, the low yield point steel plate material used in the test was 8 mm thick. -> Do not merely respond to the reviewer's comments in the note. Update the answer to the manuscript. My question is the question that the potential audience also wants to know.
Answer: The following detailed explanation has been supplemented in the section 2.1.1.
Because low-yield-point steel belongs to a new type of structural material and the current market demand is not extensive, only a few thickness specifications of steel plate can be selected and purchased. Therefore, the shear infill panels used for the loading experiment of the LYP steel plate shear wall in this paper were adopted as 8 mm thickness with a yield strength of 100 MPa.
Question 3. The reviewer is aware that they are measured values. This paper has 23 paginations. Very long. I think this is because of unnecessary contents like Table 3. The measurements indicated almost identical values. The reviewer repeats the comments. Is this table really needed? instead of a narrative description in the manuscript?
Answer: Thank you for your nice suggestion. Table 3 has been deleted and it is illustrated by a narrative description.
Question 4. Provide the changed version.
Answer: The latest revised version of the manuscript has been uploaded and can be also seen in the following attachment.
Question 5. My comment is about the y margin. For example, y margins are 15000 and 12000 for Fig. 19a and Fig. 19b, respectively. Same for comment on Fig. 20. Please catch the reviewer's point up properly.
Answer: Fig.19 and Fig.20 in the original paper are respectively Fig.20 and Fig.21 in the revised manuscript due to the revision. These two figures have been modified to match the y margin.
Question 6. My comment is related to the typo (Levles). It is Levels. I will reject this submission if the reviewer sees an additional typo.
Answer: All similar typos have been corrected in the revised manuscript and we are very sorry about that.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
