Next Article in Journal
Effects of Vertical and Horizontal Jumping Asymmetries on Linear and Change-of-Direction Speed Performance of Female Soccer Players
Previous Article in Journal
Terpenes as Potential Anti-Alzheimer’s Disease Agents
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Structural Performance of Bolted Lateral Connections in Steel Beams under Bending Using the Component-Based Finite Element Method

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 3900; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093900
by Guillermo Morido-García 1 and César De Santos-Berbel 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 3900; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093900
Submission received: 29 March 2024 / Revised: 21 April 2024 / Accepted: 30 April 2024 / Published: 2 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Mechanical Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the effects of plate thickness, bolt spacing, and geometric arrangement of bolts on the strength of bolted lateral connections in steel beams under bending were studied using the finite element method. The following issues need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered further.

1. The details of the finite element model were not given, such as the material parameters, boundary conditions, element size, etc.

2. As can be seen from Figure 2, the mesh of the joint model is coarse. A mesh convergence study is recommended, and the result should be presented in the manuscript.

3. The calculation accuracy and correctness of the finite element model were not validated in this study.

4. Figures in this manuscript should be improved, including the content, axis name, form, and resolution.

5. In most cases, this study only describes the finite element result, and lacks the discussion and analysis of the results. The authors need to be extremely clear and indicate the novelty in terms of data, work, and discussions that this manuscript brings to the community.

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes a study exploiting the component-based finite element method to define the best configuration for the joint of IPE profiles. Different geometrical alternatives are compared and discussed. The outline of the methodology and the description of the result need to be improved before publication. In particular, the revised version of the manuscript should solve the following issues:

·         Figure 1 – Show the dimensions of the joint components.

·         Page 3, line 108 – Provide a brief recall of the theoretical basis behind the Component Method.

·         Page 3, lines 130-131 – Not merging meshes of different components is common practice for FE modeling. Clarify why it is particularly relevant in this case.

·         Page 3, line 133 – What is the mathematical formulation of the massless interpolation constraints? Where are they precisely applied? Could you provide an example of these constraints concerning the joint in Figure 2?

·         Page 4, lines 138-141 – The details about the FE mesh need to be further discussed:

o   Are the elements linear or quadratic?

o   The mesh does not seem to be refined enough; what are the considerations behind the mesh convergence analysis?

o   What are the load and constraints applied to the model?

o   What quantity is depicted in the contour plot?

o   What is the legend of the contour plot?

·         Figures 5, 9 and 13 – Is the von Mises stress the one reported in the figure? For completeness, could you also report the contour of plastic deformation related to these configurations?

·         Section 4 – What is the stress state in the two IPE24 profiles?

·         The review of the scientific background is quite limited, especially considering the broad literature about bolted joint analysis and simulation. The references should be enlarged to include more papers, such as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112770; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4290-7_14; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112005

Author Response

Please, see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns about this study have been addressed by the authors. In my opinion, the revised version can be considered for acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The required amendments were considered and implemented.

The paper can be accepted in its present form.

Back to TopTop