Research on Parametric Vibration of a Steel Truss Corridor under Pedestrians Excitation Considering the Time-Delay Effect

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Abstract:

Should be more succinct and clearer about the subject of the article;

It has two duplicate sentences;

It should be noted that the Millennium Steel Truss Corridor, located in …….., is part of the article as a case study;

The main conclusions about the findings should be presented succinctly.

- Figures 2 to 7 are not written in English. This is unacceptable in an international scientific publication. Must be edited and written in English

- The results need to be discussed, relating them to the literature review presented and to the works by other authors that have been done recently.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for reviewer’s opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript,further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript.  Now I response the reviewers comments with a point by point.Full details of the files are listed. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript,further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript.  Now I response the reviewers comments with a point by point in the attachment. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is very carelessly written, it contains many imprecise terms and jargon phrases.

I ended the review on page 5 because it is not the role of the reviewer to correct all errors in the article - the authors must focus on the entire text of the article, taking into account the indicated comments.

Notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript,further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. I response the comments with a point by point in attachment . We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with a model by Piccardio that authors have improved. The authors established the nonlinear dynamic equation of the Steel Truss Corridor. The influence of time delay effect on dynamic response is analyzed. I think this topic has high scientific soundness and is interesting for readers.

I dont know why authors label the researched object one time Steel Trust Corridor and next time Millenium Steel Trust Corridor. Is there any difference or authors only wanted to use different name?

There are duplicate words/sentences in the text. For example line 11-14, line 51. Authors should read the whole paper carefully.

Figure 2 has wrong text in the label.

In fig. 4,5,6, the lateral displacement has unit m/s. Is this correct?

 

I think that after corrections that I have described, the paper can be published.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript,further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red notes are the changes I have made in the manuscript. Now I response the reviewers comments with a point by point in the attachment.We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Sorry Winnetou.

The second version of the article, I just received, is in such a state that it is a bit of a pain to read - I expect two versions: a revised version and a cleaned/final version, not a mixture of this. I don't think it's my software's fault because it's the first time I got such a freak.

The authors corrected many bugs - but not all. There are many redundant/incomprehensible duplicate texts/patterns/drawings (including in Chinese) that were not there before.

By the way - at first glance, Fig. 6 contains identical graphs - so either they are redundant in such a quantity, or it is necessary to clearly indicate where and what are the differences between them.

I don't understand - did the titles of the cited articles change after the reviews as well?????

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are sorry to present a bad manuscript.We do not know what caused the manuscript to become confusing, the manuscript we see on our system is not like this, it may be caused by an upload error.We have revised and uploaded a new manuscript.Looking forward to get your understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Notes in the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed notes in the attachment.We have carefully revised our manuscript,further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. I response the comments with a point by point in attachment . We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx