审稿意见返回，请帮我翻译下，谢谢

　　审稿意见返回，请帮我翻译下，谢谢。Reviewer #1: Here the reviewer is providing comments by answering few questions, which will provide a thorough understanding of the whole manuscripts stand as far as quality is concerned.

1. Does the manuscript present a specific, easily identifiable advance in knowledge? Is it applicable and useful to the profession?
The paper has come up with an idea for reductions in seismic response of bridges using self-designed ECD device. It seems that possibly due to the wrong English and grammar the paper is written in, the objectives, goals and contributions the authors tended to transfer to readers have not been well delivered. Also, the methodology the authors have used should better be clarified more, especially regarding the innovativeness of the proposed control strategies and the proposed damping ECD.

2. Do the title and abstract accurately describe the contents? Does the abstract include all of the main findings of the study?
The title and abstract match the contents well. It is found in the abstract that four main objectives are followed in the research:
a) Self-designed ECD
b) Compiled semi-active and active control strategy using MATLAB
c) Optimized control strategies using Genetic Algorithm
d) Investigating the effect of active and semi-active control strategies for both isolated and non-isolated bridge models under four seismic excitations using MATLAB
The subtitles of the manuscript also are too general, that the context is not able to cover the idea of the title completely. Either the title should be more narrowed down, or the context be expanded.

3. Is the review of literature limited to that framing the new knowledge? Are all references pertinent and complete?
The literature review covers the background of the paper subject and the objectives it tends to follow. However, it is too general and it should be narrowed down to the main objectives of the study. Since the proposed idea of the paper is about semi-active and active control strategies, the literature review should be mostly focused on this aspect; while it is now more generally about isolation techniques and rubber bearings.

4. Is the methodology sufficiently well explained that someone else knowledgeable about the field could repeat the study?
Considering this issue, the paper is not perfectly prepared. The methodology used to reach the results from the input data is not explained clearly enough.
The new proposed methodology should be made clearer in order for the reader or future researchers to be able to conduct the study similarly on their own. In order to do so, the part of the manuscript entitled "The design of semi-active control strategy for ECD" (Section 4) should be expanded.

5. Is each figure and table necessary to the understanding of the conclusions? Can any be omitted without compromising the papers message?
The figures and tables appeared in the manuscript seem to be needed for the reader to better understand the writers orientation and goals. They are explanatory and they do not sound unnecessary to be omitted except following two figures:
Figure 4: There are 2 figures both titled mistakenly as Fig. 4 in the manuscript, the first one is less important and may be omitted; but still it helps the reader to become more familiar with the explained text.
Figure 15: It shows the power distribution of the Ninghe-Tianjin wave (N Wave), which is available to researchers and is not needed to be presented in the paper.
Other figures explanations can be found as follows:
Figures 1 to 3Explanation of the subject, the problem being studied and the considered model for that.
Figures 4 to 10Figures illustrating the obtained data for the bridge systems under one of the four seismic excitations considered.
Figures 11 and 12Time history of the control forces and the hysteretic force-displacement forces of the proposed ECD device respectively.
Figure 13: The hysteretic force-displacement forces of Lead-Core Rubber Bearings (LRB).
Figure 14:Comparison of the displacements the LRB undergoes in different conditions the paper studies.

6. Are the results soundly interpreted and related to existing knowledge on the topic?
7. Are the conclusions sound and justified? Do they follow logically from data presented?
For questions 6 and 7: As long as the obtained results are concerned, one main issue is that the accuracy and applicability of the analysis method is not verified within the research or simply is not presented in the context of the manuscript. The results and conclusions are reliable if the analysis is done using an appropriate and verified method.

8. Do all elements of the manuscript relate logically to the studys statement of purpose?
As for the title of the manuscript, the optimization method is not a goal for the research. So, the expanded explanations about Genetic Algorithm and optimization procedures would mostly not relate the studys goals. To care for this issue, either the excess information about GA should be minimized, or it should be mentioned as one of the studys main goals and, therefore, the title should be changed in a way that it expresses the existing objectives.

9. Can the paper be shortened without compromising its message?
The definition and explanation of Genetic Algorithm (GA) is defined more than needed with regards to scopes of the research. Since the main subject is not about optimizing control strategy parameters, no new idea in this aspect is presented and the conventional GA is used, the explanation can be summarized and some of them can be skipped.
Also, in the Result Analysis section (Section 5.2 of the manuscript), too much written context is used to explore within the results obtained. It would be better if the comparison made between obtained results be mentioned in the form of tables or comparative figures. Tables and figures are used to illustrate a part of the results; but not all of them.
===有问必答===
还要加油啊。。。

貌似很多基本功都没到位啊。。。