Analyzing the Flexural Performance of Cold-Formed Steel Sigma Section Using ABAQUS Software

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Respected Reviewer...

All the suggestions are edited and incorporated...

Many Thanks for the suggestions to improve the article's quality... 

On behalf of other authors, I am submitting the article for further process... 

Humble request you to forward the article further... 

 

Thank You... 

Regards

Dr Ashok Vajravelu. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study examined the capacity and deformation behaviors of CFS members of C-section with different web stiffeners from numerical analysis and experimental research. As its structural parameters of the numerical analysis, width of the web, thickness, and the web width-to-thickness ratio of the section were considered. According to the results of numerical analysis, it is concluded that a triangular stiffener section can significantly reduce the cost. However, there are many problems in the paper, some of which are serious.

Point 1: Page 4, Figure 1-4, please indicate the sizes of different web stiffeners and the symbols used by each part of the plates, such as h, b, t, etc.

Point 2: Page 7, Figure 15, please change the x-axis naming to thickness rather than deformation.

Point 3: Page 1, line22 and Page21, line 491, please explain the phenomena contrary to the final conclusion ‘the higher value of the h/t ratio in the section, have low load-capacity’. For example, Page 7, Figure 15, and Page11, Figure35, the load when h=200, t=4, h/t=50 is greater than when h=100, t=2.3, h/t=43.5; The load when h=200, t=2.3, h/t=87 is greater than that when h=100, t= 1.2, h/t=83.

Point 4: Page 13, Figure 38-45, please explain why the finite element model can be used despite the large gap between the experimental and simulated values shown in these figures.

Point 5: Please check whether the illustration corresponds to the figure one by one, for example, Figure 41-45 and Figure 112-117. Please also make sure the font size and font type shown in one figure are uniform and modify the type to ensure that the image is clear.

Point 6: Page 21, line513, it is difficult to reach the conclusion that ‘significant cost reduction in the construction can be made when a section with a triangular stiffener is used’ only based on the existing diagrams.

Point 7: Page 21, line495, details of the further analysis and the causes of the experimental results should be explained. Conclusion part only describes the simple numerical conclusion of the experiment, and lacks the further analysis and the causes of the experimental results.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer...

All the suggestions are edited and incorporated...

Many Thanks for the suggestions to improve the article's quality... 

On behalf of other authors, I am submitting the article for further process... 

Humble request you to forward the article further... 

 

Thank You... 

Regards

Dr Ashok Vajravelu. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

An analytical study using ABAQUS software for designing a new concept of cold-formed steel sigma section has been presented in this paper. In general, the research is interesting and well-presented the case of the study.  However, there are some comments for further improve the submitted manuscript: 

·        The title needs more improvement to clarify the type of the studied section, it could be similar but not limited to the following suggestions; "Analyzing the flexural performance of cold-formed steel sigma section using ABAQUS software", or “An Analytical and Experimental Approaches for investigating the flexural performance of cold-formed steel sigma section“.

·        The abstract needs to clarify the main problem statement, and/or the main objective of this study.   

·         The introduction is quite general, a deep discussion of the background and literature of the studied case needs to be provided.

·         The main gap between the existing studies and the main goal of the current research needs to be clearly highlighted and discussed.

·         Figures 9 and 10, could be separated in two lines (as per the usual presentation for figures in the published papers), or could have the same number of figures but with 2 or more subfigures (a, b, c….etc). In another ward, as an example, Figures 9 and 10 could be combined to become Figures 9 (a) and (b). Same comment for the rest of the Figures in this paper.

·         Figures 12-13, needs to identify the P1HF1, P1HF2 in the related sentences, and P1HF3, also in Figure 15 the HF1, HF2 and HF3

·         Figure 15 replaces the “DEFORMATION (mm)” with “Thickness”.

·         Improve the font size for the text and numbers of all Figures; in general, the quality of presentation for ALL Figures must be improved.

·         Figures numbering system needs to be rechecked again, jumped from 45 to 96 !!!.

·        The conclusion section needs more improvement by technically discussing the main outcomes from these analytical and experimental investigations, not only summarizing the results.

·         Also highlight the limitation of this research in the conclusion section.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Respected Reviewer...

All the suggestions are edited and incorporated...

Many Thanks for the suggestions to improve the article's quality... 

On behalf of other authors, I am submitting the article for further process... 

Humble request you to forward the article further... 

 

Thank You... 

Regards

Dr Ashok Vajravelu. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The structure of the manuscript has been greatly modified, and is more reasonable. Only some of the previously given comments was considered. The main problem of this manuscript is that the results of the test and simulation is very different. How do we believe the conclusions of a large number of simulations.

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

I have addressed the suggestions as mentioned clearly. 

Requested to proceed further. 

Regards

Ashok Vajravelu  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised manuscript considered the previously given comments, and the paper is now in a better version.

However, I advise further improving the presentation of the figures (11-18, and 21-31), such as they can have the same figures' size (dimensions), the same font/size for the text and numbers inside these figures, and some of these texts inside figures are stretched/not clear..........etc.  

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

I have addressed the suggestions as mentioned clearly. 

Requested to proceed further. 

Regards

Ashok Vajravelu  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript mentioned that because of the support circumstances and diverse equipment involved in the measurement, the values of vertical deformation from experimental work differ somewhat from analytical results.  So, which is more reliable, test or finite element analysis results? Are all conclusions appropiate?

Author Response

Respected Reviewers and Editors…

Happy to share your expertise to improve the content of the article content through your valuable suggestions and comments.

“Analyzing the Flexural performance of Cold-Formed Steel Sigma Section using ABAQUS Software”

All the suggestions are edited and incorporated...

Many Thanks for the suggestions to improve the article's quality...

On behalf of other authors, I am submitting the article for further processing... 

The changes in the conclusion part have been made and only the specific point of importance related to results are included in the revised version.

The Finite Element Analysis work is more reliable as compared to the test because due to this process, the cost associated with the experimental process can be reduced and also the changes can be done in Finite Element Analysis by reducing the time involved in the experimental process.

Humble request you to forward the article further... 

I am sure that no issues in any form towards publishing this article….

Thanking You... 

Regards

Dr Ashok Vajravelu. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx