Effectiveness of High-Damping Rubber (HDR) Damper and Tuned Mass—HDR Damper in Suppressing Stay-Cable Vibration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper describes the effect of new HDR dampers and HDR-TMD on the vibration-damping characteristics of bridges.
The novelty and importance of the paper are well. However, I believe the authors should deeply consider the following comments.
(1)The elastic modulus and loss factor of high-damping rubber show frequency dependence due to its viscoelasticity. However, this manuscript seems to consider them as constant values. Does the frequency dependence of HDR not need to consider in the case of this manuscript?
(2)Figure 3b shows that as the mass ratio mu increases, the damping ratio gradually becomes asymmetric with respect to the length ratio x2/L. How can this phenomenon be explained physically?
(3)Looking at Figure 9, the asymmetry characteristic which I mentioned above does not appear to be as large as in Figure 3b. Also, the damping ratio values are larger than when only TM-HDR-D is introduced. It would be desirable to discuss the reason for these.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Are the stiffnesses and damping coefficients of the modeled rubber dampers hypothetical or taken from a real application?
2) Apart from what is known on the effect of rubber dampers, what do you suggest as a result of this study?
3) The conclusion part should be developed, it is given as a technical report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deals with a high-damping rubber damper and tuned mass-HDR damper in suppressing stay-cable vibrations.
The following comments arise:
1. Comparison with real-world data or FEM simulations would be necessary to consolidate the results.
2. The contribution of this paper with respect to the state of the art should be emphasized.
3. The literature review should be improved highlighting the contribution of the proposed solution with respect to existing solutions, even if applied to different linear structures, on a different scale. However, some analogies can be traced. I.e. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2015.02.031, DOI: 10.1680/bren.14.00026, DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.546
4. Please improve the significance of Figure 6. The contribution of the proposed solution seems negligible. Put uncontrolled configuration also. And comment the small difference between HDR and TM configuration with TM one.
5. The paper should emphasize the contribution of practical interest of the proposed solutions, for example, the guidelines and standards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been revised accordingly with the reviewer's comment and, in the opinion of this reviewer, it could be accepted in the present form.
