A New Response Surface Stochastic Analysis Method for Spatial Structure Stability—The Reticulated Shell Structure as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The numbering of the mathematical formulas must be aligned to the right.
At line 148: must be explained in more detail why ???(??1,??2,⋯???)=1 ?
All equations or mathematical formulas must be noted (examples of lines 148, 190, 192, 196, 200, 208, etc.).
The terms used in equation 2 must be explained and detailed more so, that the reader understands the formula.
In figures 1. (b) and 6. (b) the load P can be concretely drawn.
When acronyms are mentioned for the first time they must be explained and the full name written (examples: CCD, MC, MCS, BBM).
At lines 329, 331, 342, 344, 350, 351 etc. and in figure 4 the full name of the Box-Behnken method should be used.
In figure 6 (b) the total height of 0.9141 should be noted.
On paragraph 4.1.2. expression needs to be improved.
Figure 7 states that the own method is compared with the classical method, but it is not understood which of the curves used are for the new method, respectively which are for the old method.
Author Response
All authors sincerely thank the reviewer’s suggestions. We have already given a response to every suggestion and made an explain or revision to it attached below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a new method for the study of the effect of imperfections on the stability behavior of reticulated structures. The method is interesting and concerns a topic object of current studies, particularly relevant in practical design applications. It is suggested to revise the structure of the paper in order to better point out the main features of the proposed method. In particular the reviewer proposes the following ones but also a general revision of the English: -line 62-64: revise the sentence: its meaning it is not clear -sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3: these sections provide a general description and consequently their text can be incorporated directly in the previous paragraph. -line 91-95: revise the sentence: its meaning it is not clear -line 143: check the symbols -section 2.2.2.2: it is suggested to include the information of this section directly in the previous paragraph -line 183: substitute the word paper with method -line 233: why the previous article? -sect. 3.1: revise the whole sentence -sect. 4: revise the last sense -line 366: revise the sentenceAuthor Response
All authors sincerely thank the reviewer’s suggestions. We have already given a response to every suggestion and made an explain or revision to it attached below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The language of the manuscript needs major revision.
The results presented in Chapter 3 are not supported by any calculations or research.
Many of the references is written in Chinese, which is completely unhelpful to the reader.
The conclusions are vague, there are many errors in them and they are not useful for anything.
Author Response
All authors sincerely thank the reviewer’s suggestions. We have already given a response to every suggestion and made an explain or revision to it attached below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors' explanations are sufficient.
