Analysis of the Seismic Performance of a Masonry Structure with RC Frames on the First Story with Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular Dampers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of this article as well as its structure lacks innovation. As you know, low-rise structures do not need much ductility. In this type of structure, increasing stiffeness and strength is more important than ductility. Therefore, adding a damper not only no improves its behavior, but also reduces its stiffeness and strength.

In addition, the structure of the article is not set properly. The abstract and conclusion are very poorly written. In the conclusion, first, the damper should be introduced very briefly, then the summary of the findings should be stated.

In the text of the article, methodology should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A re-review of the manuscript is required.

 

1) Abstract should be re-arranged and improved, better highlighting the novelty of the work.

 

2) At the end of Introduction (lines 106-119), the main steps of the study are presented. However, the main aims and, above all, the main novelty aspects of the study should be explained and discussed.

 

3) Line 47. It is suggested to extend the literature review, adding, near reference [10], the following references:

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000814

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.001

 

4) Section 3.2.1. More information about the Concrete Damage Plasticity model (values of the main parameters of the model) used for concrete should be provided.

 

5) Section 3.2.1. Specify the model used to simulate the behavior of steel reinforcement.

 

6) Fig. 12. Insert variable and unit for the horizontal axis of the diagram.

 

7) Section 4.1. Provide details about the FE model of the structure under study.

 

8) Section 4.1. Provide the main results of modal analysis (at least the period of the first modes) of the structure under study.

 

9) Section 4.1 (lines 706-708). It is required to provide the main characteristics of the three input seismic motion used in the non-linear dynamic analyses (or at least the acceleration-time diagrams).

 

10) At the beginning of Conclusions (Section 5), before presenting the main results obtained, the main aims and the main novelty aspects of the study should be shortly summarized.

 

11) At the end of Conclusions, some short recommendations for future work should be included.

 

12) The manuscript is characterized by a low quality of English language. A deep and extensive revision of the text is strongly required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the paper there are several issues that need to be addressed according to the comments available in the attached pdf file. The paper will be reconsidered after the authors have solved all the highlighted issues.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been revised in high quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made the required corrections and the paper can be accepted