Estimation of Flexural Tensile Strength as a Function of Shear of Timber Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very informative and has been nicely presented. Some minor corrections/comments have been provided and may be addressed.

1. Which one is appropriate: Flexural Strength of Flexural tensile strength?

2. Abbreviations should be uniform and must be spelled out at the first point of use?

3. What does Apparent Density mean?. Some of the wood densities (Ex. ID 10 and 15) seems very high (Fig.2)

4. Table headings are missing. Check and correct?

4. p-value described in the discussion is different to that given in  Table 4.

Some other minor comments/suggestions has been highlighted in the pdf copy of the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript is nicely presented and the general English is quite good. Some minor improvements may be needed

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their contribution to our work, consider their queries and try to respond to all requests.

Revisor 1:

We carried out a revision in the English writing of the paper, as requested

Which one is appropriate: Flexural Strength of Flexural tensile strength?

As normally wood material in bending ruptures first in the tensile region, it was decided to leave this effect highlighted.

Abbreviations should be uniform and must be spelled out at the first point of use?

Excellent observation, as it really is necessary. We have revised the entire text, seeking to meet the writing of the expression in its first appearance. In addition, we also inserted a list of the main abbreviations at the end of the article. Thank you for your note.

What does Apparent Density mean?. Some of the wood densities (Ex. ID 10 and 15) seems very high (Fig.2)

According to NBR 7190-1, apparent density of wood is the specific mass obtained by the quotient of mass by volume. In Figure 2 (a) each column represents the average bulk density of a wood species, obtaining values from 0.49 g/cm³ to 1.35 g/cm³. Wood species 10 and 15 have 1.3 and 1.35 g/cm³, respectively.

Table headings are missing. Check and correct?

We have revised the headings and now the tables that were missing captions have been inserted. Thank you for your attention.

P-value described in the discussion is different to that given in Table 4.

Excellent observation, the sign of the p-value in table 4 was not correct. Thank you for your consideration.

The other observations in the comments have also been addressed and we highlight them below:

• In line 61, the sub-indices have been replaced by 0.
• In line 64 (3rd comment), the shear stress was previously defined in lines 55 - 56 of the new document.
• Equation number adjustment performed in the line 134.
• In line 249 the highlight with the best equation was changed, as the simplest was chosen due to the little difference with the cubic model.
• In line 269, the sentence: "GEV-distribution" has been added for better understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Estimation of flexural tensile strength as a function of shear of timber structures

 

This paper proposes a new list of 23 properties to be inserted in future versions of the Brazilian standards in order to know the species 24 shear strength. the linear model composed fm,k = α1 × fv0,k  presented a determination coefficient of 76.45%, which shows the good precision achieved in the estimation of one of the two variables compared if the other is known.

 

This reviewer recommends that a list with all abbreviations

 

Introduction

L59 This reference does not mention the quantity of laboratories in Brazil.

L61 Which is the correct form fco or fc0 or fto or ft0. The abbreviations must be standardized across text.

Equation 1-3 All terms must be defined. Any information was presented of

L75 Ref 10. This reference is not for solid wood. This reference must be evaluated.

L90-91 The objective is explained poorly. This reviewer considered that more information can be added.

The introduction can be focused in relationship between flexural and compression resistance, and any references were not presented.

 

Materials and methods.

This section is presented appropriately. 

L120 Any information was presented about drying.

L121 It is possible to add information about specify gravity. And scientific name in italic form. This reviewer recommend that ID could be changed for Number of wood. And this name could be used in all figures and tables.

 

Results and discussions

L206-209 these lines can be removed.

L214 x-axes in this case can not used step of 2, because they represent species, then used 1 x 1.

L216 It can add a footnote where writes that the values between square parenthesis represents CV.

L219 Which is literature?

L259 Title of this table must be improvement.

L279 Fig. or Figure. Standardized this word across the text

 

Conclusions

This section is not a summarized of results. The conclusions must be derived from objective.

Author Response

Answers to Revisors

We thank the reviewers for their contribution to our work, consider their queries and try to respond to all requests.

Revisor 2

This reviewer recommends that a list with all abbreviations.

We inserted a list of the main abbreviations at the end of the article. Thank you for your note.

Introduction

L59 This reference does not mention the quantity of laboratories in Brazil.

This information is not possible to provide due to lack of source, but we know that many laboratories in Brazil do not have instrumentation with displacement transducers, due to their high cost, as well as in several developing countries. We have also adapted the writing in this paragraph to make our motivation clearer. Thank you for your comment.

L61 Which is the correct form fco or fc0 or fto or ft0. The abbreviations must be standardized across text.

We have carried out the standardization, thank you for your comment.

Equation 1-3 All terms must be defined.

We have carried out the definition of the variables, in lines 55 to 63, thank you for your comment.

Any information was presented of L75 Ref 10. This reference is not for solid wood. This reference must be evaluated.

We believe it is valid to keep the reference, since it also aims to predict properties, but with another methodology. The text has been improved.

L90-91 The objective is explained poorly. This reviewer considered that more information can be added.

Thank you for your comment and we have tried to improve the proposed text.

The introduction can be focused in relationship between flexural and compression resistance, and any references were not presented.

This would be a different approach for the research. We could have made this focus in the introduction; however, we prefer to keep the focus on the amount of studies that seek these simplified characterizations and their advantages. If you find it interesting, we can change the focus of our introduction, since both approaches speak to the topic of our research.

Materials and methods.

This section is presented appropriately.

L120 Any information was presented about drying.

Thanks for the information. We really forgot to add that part. The humidity was as defined by Brazilian regulations, which is 12%.

 

 

L121 It is possible to add information about specify gravity. And scientific name in italic form. This reviewer recommend that ID could be changed for Number of wood. And this name could be used in all figures and tables.

We have made the appropriate changes, except for the ID. We prefer to leave ID so the table doesn't get too big in the text. As it is, it is the same width as the main text.

Results and discussions

L206-209 these lines can be removed.

We have removed the introductory text.

L214 x-axes in this case can not used step of 2, because They represent species, then used 1 x 1.

If we use step of 1, the text does not fit on the axis. Due to the guidelines of keeping the text size equal to the main text, we prefer to keep it that way. The important thing is that all IDs are represented.

L216 It can add a footnote where writes that the values between square parenthesis represents CV.

The sentence has been rewritten to insert this information, see lines 221-224. Thank you for your contribution.

L219 Which is literature?

Corrected in the text. Thank you for the information.

L259 Title of this table must be improvement.

We have revised the headings. Thank you for your attention.

L279 Fig. or Figure. Standardized this word across the text

We have carried out the standardization, thank you for your comment

Conclusions

This section is not a summarized of results. The conclusions must be derived from objective.

Thank you for your comments. We will improve the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

I reviewed your manuscript. This article has good structure and looks correct. However I have some remarks as follows:

 

1) Abstract should be without equations and should presented aim of study, what and how has been done, what results were obtained and main conclution. 

2) Intruduction should be devided on two part: intruduction and theoretical backgroud. In intruduction should be included stade of art in discussed area. This paper need more references.

In theoretcal backgroud should be included informations about standard procedures of calcuations and equations.

3) Methods. For me is missing informations about density and stucture of each group of samples and each samples. Because density and wood structure (late-wood and early-wood) can have an effect on analysed properties. You can find references about it.

4) informations about samples preparation process are missing (cutting process, drying process, conditioning etc.) These processes have effect on properties of wood (you can find references).

5) Each standards mentioned in text should be presented in references list. 

6) It would be a good idea to add a list of symbols and abbreviations

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for their contribution to our work, consider their queries and try to respond to all requests.

Revisor 3

Abstract should be without equations and should presented aim of study, what and how has been done, what results were obtained and main conclution.

Thank you for your comments. We will improve the text.

Intruduction should be devided on two part: intruduction and theoretical backgroud. In intruduction should be included stade of art in discussed area. This paper need more references. In theoretical backgroud should be included informations about standard procedures of calculations and equations.

We have added 17 relevant references in the introduction to address the topic, these being the main ones in the field. If necessary, we can do another literature review to improve this amount, but we believe it is sufficient to support the research. Regarding the normative equations, we leave them to be presented in the methodology (2. Materials and Methods).

Methods. For me is missing informations about density and stucture of each group of samples and each samples. Because density and wood structure (late-wood and early-wood) can have an effect on analysed properties. You can find references about it.

The density of the samples are shown in Figure 2.a.

Information about samples preparation process are missing (cutting process, drying process, conditioning etc.) These processes have effect on properties of wood (you can find references).

Thank you for your important remarks, and we have improved the text in this respect.

Each standard mentioned in text should be presented in references list.

Thank you for your comment and we will review the written text.

It would be a good idea to add a list of symbols and abbreviations

We made the list at the end of the text. Thank you for your comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your responses, however I am not satisfied with them. You showed densities in figure 2a, but you didn't discuss it and relation between density and mechanical properties (in results). 

Information that the samples were prepered according to Brasilian standards is not correct. In methodology you have to included detailed information about samples preparation process (which cutting process was used, which drying method was used, and specific parameters for each).  

Author Response

Good morning, dear reviewer. I hope you are well and healthy.

Thank you for the correction and I inform you that the parameters have been added to the text. If you need anything else, we are at your disposal.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

the article is in acceptable form for publication