Study on Seismic Performance Optimization of Assembly Concrete-Filled Steel Tubular (CFST)-Laced Piers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors have appropriately addressed all comments of other reviewers. The paper is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

All comments were corrected as requested!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The article investigates the seismic performance of concrete-filled steel tubular bridge’s columns using two modeling approaches. It is well written and only minor modifications are required (a proof reading should be conducted as well). The topic has significant applications, and so it is recommended to be accepted. There are only some minor comments/recommendations that should be addressed before publishing the paper.

1-      In Table 5, add two more columns in which the modal mass participation factors associated with each model are provided

2-      More details are required regarding the algorithm followed to generate artificial ground motions.

3-      At each section, add one table which lists the periods associated with the structural systems. This Table can provide a better insight into change of stiffness for each new structural configuration.

4-      Illustrate the increase in displacement demand by growth of height and explain that if bearing displacement capacity is enough for all cases.

5-      Provide some more information regarding the laces’ sections characteristics and mechanical properties.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor modifications are required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic covered in this paper is relevant to civil engineering (study of the seismic behavior of concrete-filled steel tubular (CFST) laced piers by developing two Finite Element Models, a simplified finite element models and a refined one for a real bridge. The methodology used is the one usually employed in these problems and the treatment and discussion of the results is correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.What is the significance of simplifying the finite element analysis model? Can the simplified model reflect the real seismic response of the structure?

2.The establishment of the refined model should pay more attention to the damage and failure process of the key parts of the structure, such as the excessive deformation of the support and the failure of the shear key at the steel-concrete joint. It is not just the overall response of the structure.

3.Has the shear key between the steel-concrete interface been considered in the refined model？

4.Why are the 3rd and 8th modes of the two models different? What is the reason?

5.Can the overall instability or local instability occur in advance?

6.There are no figures in Figures 14 and 17.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

21 February 2023

Review of the manuscript 2247185

“Study on Seismic Performance Optimization of assembly Con- 2

crete-Filled Steel Tubular (CFST) Laced Piers”

 

 I understand that authors analysed the seismic performance optimization of assembly CFST.  I think the manuscript worth publication.  However, I have some comments as follows.

1. Please consider again the sections of this manuscript (from 1 to 6) . The sections 2 and 3 are Materials and Methods, the sections 4 and 5 are mixture of Methods, Results and Discussion. Authors should prepare simple sections, for example 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results and Discussions, 4. Conclusions.

2. Page 2, line 81: Author writes “this study takes a real bridge as the object analysis.”.  Please show the data of frequency and amplitude of general vibrations.

3. Page 4, line 107: Author used SAP2000 software to analyse the seismic performance. Author must prove the reliability of this software with actual data.

4. Table. 1 , Please add the typical strength values of Q345 and C80 in this table.

5. Page 5, line 156: Author explains about the E2 acceleration as an initial loading condition of the simulations. Please clear the points and directions of E2 in Figure 1.

6. Page 7, line 183-184: Author compare the simplified model and the refined model. 　I think that both data are simulated by same software （SAP2000）, so automatically these data close each other. Author should also compare and discuss with actual data (vibration period and amplitude) of the bridge.  

7. Page 9, Figure 9.: Why only 1# drift data (Figure 9(a)) include the high frequency components (noise)?

8. Author should discuss bridge safety.  If the stress of the material at the bridge (Q345 steel) exceeds its strength, the bridge will break. Please prove the safety of your bridge by checking the stress of the simulation results. I think that the stress data is more important than the data of drift or displacement from the point of view of safety.

That all my opinions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study presents the analytical study on the seismic behavior of CFST laced piers by FEM methods. However, this study lacks novelty and deep analysis. In addition, the content of the paper contains too many English grammar errors, which is inappropriate for an academic SCI paper.  Therefore, this reviewer suggested to reject this paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have used spherical bearings the bridge, there was no explanation behind using it!

Figure 14. Envelope diagram of bending moment of each pier is not shown in the paper.

From Figure 12 to 14, change the word Hight to Height.

Change 5.5 Longitudinal slop to 5.5 Longitudinal slope

Figure. 17. Comparison of maximum seismic response under different column steel ratios is not shown

The authors have not shown the parameters they have used in their FEM model in SAP2000 such as the material properties, the meshing size … etc.

The Software SAP2000 was not mentioned in the references list!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf