the qualitativ r this?

The work co ading protocol

xperimentsComment on the design guidelines of these stru
1. between the column and brace has been
ctures with the help of given The gap
1. e. the Braced pier would behave superior even befor
2. ace test know that the Braced pier would
3. What are the main
2.
be clearly discussed. Is are more expressed in terms of quantities rather than
3. it based on know that the Braced pier would behave superior even before the test? The
conclusio ns or discussion of the results the stiffness, strength, or damage
limitability????? Had authors
applied lo ore expressed in terms of q
ations of the paper as we
structures with the help of given experiments. implications of the

What are the main e analysis. Comment

se structures with the help of given experiments. ns or discussion of
alone, validate the the applied loading protocol used

4. ken/considered into account which is critical er?

5. on the design guidelines of these guidelines of these stru
6. The gap between the column and brace has been mentioned in nclusions or discussion of the
results are more eather than the qualitative analysis) of the pier has not been ta xpressed in
terms of quantities rather than the qualitative analysis. Comment on the
. Comment on the design
the paper but not discussed. What er?
1. er? protocol used? (Fig 15 (b))
2. the results are m
discussion of the results design guidelines of the
? (Fig 15 (b))
The conclusions or

For the brace test alone, validate considered other arrangements of the brace in the pi
4. ing point (WP behave superior even before the test?
5. used? (Fig 15 (b))
6. e the test? The
7. For the br implications of the paper as we know that

is the optimum value fo

8. paper as we