PONE-D-24-16917Seismic Response of a Mid-story Isolated Stilted Structure in Mountainous AreasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

• The manuscript written English and fashion does not meet the standard of PLOS ONE. Please consult professional proofreading services to improve the English of the manuscript.
• There are several editorial mistakes, please correct them.
• Please increase the legend size of the figures. It is hard to read them.
• Please highlight the design response spectra in Figure 4.
• Please discuss the results of base shear.
• Please improve the conclusions and write down them point-wise for ease of readers.
• Please address the comments specifically and in detail in the response to the reviewer report. Also, do identify where in the text you have made the changes by red color, it is particularly helpful to note the page and line numbers from the original manuscript and revision so comparisons can be made.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahad Javanmardi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, damage factors of a 10-story midstory isolated stilted building is identified under earthquakes. Six cases differing in the slope value and foundation type are considered for nonlinear dynamic analysis. It is shown that the seismic response is amplified with respect to when SSI is not considered. Increase of the base slope is shown to have an increasing effect on the SSI responses up to 80% while it does not affect the rigid-base responses. The foundation soil stresses increase in this case as well. At the stilted level, the maximum seismic response is shown to be belonging to the short columns.

The paper needs a major revision based on the following:

1. First of all, there is several and several times of repeating “mid-story isolated stilted structures considering SSI in mountainous areas”. It is not necessary. Please resort to a brief expression after the first use of the complete phrase.

2. At the Introduction, please clearly introduce the “mid-story isolated stilted structure” and mention its purpose. It remains to the end of the paper.

3. “The seismic precautionary intensity is VIII, the design basic seismic acceleration value is 0.20 g, the construction site classification is II, the design seismic grouping is the second group”: Please define all of these expressions.

4. “the isolated layer is set at the bottom of the column on the third floor”: What is meant by the isolation layer? Why is not it placed at the foundation level?

5. Please give the mechanical properties of the so-called “HRB400” and “HPB300” steel.

6. What is meant by this sentence: “The ground motions are input separately in down slope and transverse slopes”? The input pattern is unknown. If the input motion is the same along the slope, where is the effect of spatial variation of ground motion in a ground with changing depth?

7. “the peak value of ground motions under rare earthquakes is adjusted to 400 cm/s2”: This is an outdated method of ground motion scaling. It should be based on spectral amplitude or the frequency content.

8. Fig. 5: The selected ground motions are not consistent. There is a large discrepancy between the spectral values.

6. “With the increase of mountain slope, the inter-story shear of the mid-story isolated stilted structure considering SSI in mountainous areas increases, while the inter-story shear of the mid-story isolated stilted structure without SSI is less affected by the mountain slope”: What is expected to be the reason for this phenomenon?

7. “The irregular shape of the structure will lead to torsion under earthquakes … The structure is asymmetric in transverse slope, that is, there is serious torsion”: In this study, it happens only when the ground motion is perpendicular to the stepped frame. It is not clear whether this point was considered or not.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the seismic response of a mid-story isolated stilted structure in mountainous area considering soil structure interaction has been investigated. Generally, this paper is very interesting and well-written. This reviewer thinks after a round of revision, it can be accepted.

- Abstract should be improved.

-SSI is the main contribution of this paper, some references about SSI are absent and should be added. Optimum tuned tandem mass dampers for suppressing seismic-induced vibrations considering soil-structure interaction. Structures 2023;52:1146-1159. Effect of foundation embedment ratio in suppressing seismic-induced vibrations using optimum tuned mass damper. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2023;171: 107981. Seismic Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction between inelastic structures. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn. 2024;53:1446–1464.

- I think the structural model is analyzed using sap2000. Detailed information on how the structure-soil interaction system is constructed (which element was used, where the soil properties were defined, etc.) should be added.

-In addition to PGA, PGV also has a significant effect on structural responses (i.e, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-022-03895-z). A discussion in section 3.3, considering the above-mentioned article, would be extremely useful for researchers.

- Conclusion section should be improved.

Reviewer #3: Comments:

1. Please check the manuscript for grammatical errors.

2. Please add the basis for selecting seismic motions in Section 2.3.

3. Please explain the meaning of "down slope" and "transverse slope", and explain the main differences between them in the manuscript.

4. In Table 1, the cross-sectional dimensions in mm of the frame columns are 600x600 and of main beams 700x350 and of the secondary beams 600×300. Usually, the first number is the width and the second is the depth of the member. Is the first number here width or depth? Please clarify.

5. In Section 4.2, "and the inter-story shear of six different mid-story isolated stilted structures as shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6" should be changed to "and the inter-story shear of six different mid-story isolated stilted structures as shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6". There are many similar errors in the manuscript. Please check and modify them.

6. The legends in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 are too small to see clearly. Please improve them.

Reviewer #4: It's interesting that this manuscript focuses on seismic response of a mid-story isolated stilted structure in mountainous areas.

1. What is the amount of reinforcement for beams and columns, and the size and quantity of reinforcement used, which may affect the seismic response of structure, should be clearly explained.

2. The floor plan of the structure is not introduced, and the layout of the structure may affect the seismic response of structure, so it should be clearly explained in these aspects.

3.Some of the research addressing these issues should be acknowledged, some recommended references, among many others are,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.089. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7121238. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.15276.

As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction, the quality of English needs improving.

It is my opinion that the paper can be accepted in the journal by providing some revisions mainly devoted to improve its quality and readability.?

Reviewer #5: This paper adopted the numerical software to analyze the seismic response of a mid-story isolated stilted structure models considering SSI. Some interesting results were obtained. But this manuscript can't be accepted in the present form. The authors should address the following comments well before the publication of this paper.

1. Question 1: The authors should highlight the main contribution and advantages compared with the existing literatures.

2. Question 2: Which FE software was used in the study?

3. Question 3: It should be noted that abbreviations that first appear in the manuscript must be given their full names, such as “LRB”.

4. Question 4: It is not clear which constitutive model of soil was adopted in the simulation.

5. Question 5: In the numerical simulation, the reinforcement details should be provided.

6. Question 6: The size of the soil elements should be presented explicitly, including shear wave velocity of site soil and the maximum vibration frequency of earthquake waves.

7. Question 7: During the parametric study, authors should explain why the maximum seismic response increases insignificantly as the mountain slope increases. Please explain the mechanism.

8. Question 8: The word “Kebo” should be revised as “Kobe”. In section 4.2, there should be a space in “andFig. 6”. Please correct the relevant errors in the full text carefully.

9. Question 9: The conclusion is weak and unclear. Additionally, the contribution and novelty are not clearly indicated.

10. Question 10: English should be improved. Unprofessional words should be avoided.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-16917.docx

PONE-D-24-16917R1Seismic Response of a Mid-story Isolated Stilted Structure in Mountainous AreasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 

• Please address the comments specifically and in detail in the response to the reviewer report. Also, do identify where in the text you have made the changes by red color, it is particularly helpful to note the page and line numbers from the original manuscript and revision so comparisons can be made.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahad Javanmardi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

• The manuscript written English and fashion does not meet the standard of PLOS ONE. Please consult professional proofreading services to improve the English of the manuscript.
• There are several editorial mistakes, please correct them.
• Please increase the legend size of the figures. It is hard to read them.
• Please highlight the design response spectra in Figure 4.
• Please discuss the results of base shear.
• Please improve the conclusions and write down them point-wise for ease of readers

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have made the requested revisions. Therefore, I recommend that the work be published in your journal.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: after revised, the authors have adequately addressed all comments raised in a previous round of review，so，

it can be accepted in current situation.

Reviewer #5: The manuscript is technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions. The authors have made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully availableThe paper can be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Seismic Response of a Mid-story Isolated Stilted Structure in Mountainous Areas

PONE-D-24-16917R2

Dear Dr. Liu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahad Javanmardi, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: