Experimental Investigation of Precast Rocking Walls Incorporating Tension-Compression and Shear Steel Energy Dissipaters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The information presented is relevant to the research area and the appropriate summary. Authors need to pay attention to the presentation of the text. To be analyzed, the text needs a general review: repeated figure, text with incomplete beginning, reference errors (Er- 387 error! Reference source not found.), unformatted figures, acronyms in titles of subitems and figures (without subtitles), same figure in two pages, some analyzes of results without references in the literature. The statement of the problem must be included in the Introduction or Methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.      Delete drawings in page 3 of 23 as it replicate in page 4 of 23

2.      Line 80 must begin with, Figure 1 shows ….

3.      Please check the text of Tables and figures (Error! Reference source not found)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, quasi-static tests were carried out on three specimens to assess the seismic performance of the precast rocking wall structure with the installation of multiple steel energy dissipaters, i.e., tension-compression and shear steel energy dissipaters. A parametric study was conducted using OpenSees software to investigate the effects of the initial stress of strands and the main design parameters. The results indicated that the steel energy dissipaters suffer visible plastic deformation and exhibit excellent energy dissipation capacity leading to faviourable seismic behaviour. The scope of this paper is worthy of investigation, and the manuscript is well organised. The reviewer advise for publication of this manuscript after addressing the following comments: 

1-  The introduction and specifically literature review is not inclusive! To resolve this issue, the reviewer invites the authors to include relevant studies focusing on the structural performance of steel walls/connections in seismic applications:

Cold-formed steel beam-to-column bolted connections for seismic applications. Thin-Walled Structures (2022) 172, 108876.

A critical review of cold-formed steel seismic resistant systems: Recent developments, challenges and future directions. Thin-Walled Structures (2022) 180, 109953.

Behaviour and performance of OSB-sheathed cold-formed steel stud wall panels under combined vertical and seismic loading. Thin-Walled Structures (2023) 183, 110419.

2) Figure 1 has been repeated. It should be adjusted not exceeding the page margins.

3) It is suggested to calculate the ductility of the systems and compare the effects of design parameters on their ductility.

4) A new table should be presented comparing the results of energy dissipation capacity of the systems. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1- The main question of the manuscript is the seismic performance evaluation of the proposed rocking wall structure. How can compare this feature with the seismic performance of other structures in the literature to justify its excellent energy dissipation capacity?

2- The authors should address more details about specific gaps in the field of earthquake-resistance capacity of rocking wall structures. For example, the concept and importance of energy dissipaters should be explained in detail.

3- The experimental approach is clarified completely, however, the numerical method needs more explanations and details.

4- The conclusion section is written well, but the discussion section needs more scientific clarifications, especially about the difference between numerical and experimental approaches. The authors should clearly highlight the privilege and disadvantages of the finite element method.

5- In the PDF text of the manuscript, the numbers of some references are not typed correctly and the words "Error! Reference source not found" are written several times, which should be corrected.

6- The literature review in the introduction section is not comprehensive, especially in the field of seismic and structural loadings. It is recommended that the following articles be explained in detail: DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116247. DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2023.110647. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111599.

7- Regarding the industrial applications of the present research, several practical examples should be mentioned.

8- Figure 1 is given twice in the text. Also, similar to Figure 18c, skeletal diagrams should be displayed in a zoomed graph. Besides, authors are encouraged to expand the captions of the figures in detail.

The English written language of the article should be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have sufficiently addressed the comments given earlier. However, each figure must be presented on one page, which does not happen with Figures 9 and 16.

Reviewer 4 Report

All the essential amendments have been made. The manuscript is acceptable and can be posted in the journal.