Beam-Truss Models to Simulate the Axial-Flexural-Torsional Performance of RC U-Shaped Wall Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and a very interesting read. Only one minor comment. In Figure 5d the accuracy of the BTM appears really good once the drift exceeds around 0.5%. It is not mentioned in the manuscript why the model doesn’t capture the initial response up to 0.5% very well. Is this the uncracked response, the BTM does not capture this?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction: briefly explain the Beam-Truss model.

Lines 273-277: As the potential dependence of concrete compressive strength on strain is ignored, it is important to note that the interaction between concrete and rebar also depends upon the mixture proportions. Varying pullout behavior can be noted for different cementitious compositions, use of supplementary cementitious materials etc. Therefore, it will help the reader if more details are included about the concrete.

Line 580: can fiber reinforced concrete walls be also modeled by using similar models?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article in contribution to the special issue: “site specific seismic design of buildings” is filling an important knowledge gap in the seismic demand modelling of a building which is supported by a RC U shaped shear wall. The beam-truss model (BTM) technique of simulation is elegant, easy to use, and is also effective. The validation of the simulation model by comparison against measurements from large scale experiments is particularly of great value. The presented technique is likely to be well sought after by many structural designers of buildings. The article which is very well presented and contains so much information may be accepted for publication in the special issue in the current form.

The reviewer has one suggestion to make: The ability of the BTM to simulate real behaviour so well also implies that St Venant shear which is derived from moment couples generated within the thickness of the wall is shown to be negligible. Should the author agree with this (suggested) interpretation, it may be worthwhile to make a note of that.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf