Seismic Performance Analysis of the Internal Joint in the New Demountable Fabricated Concrete Frame with Prestressed Mortise–Tenon Connections
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The work is very interesting and suitable to be published in the present form. But some improvement are needed in order to clarify the paper.
This work is extremely interesting and could be published by the journal.
1. My only concern is that I don't see a description of the wooden structural elements mentioned in the abstract. It would be good for the reader to know the origin of the wood, the internal moisture content, the orientation of the fibres and other elements that are essential for the design of mixed structures.
2. By validating the finite element model presented in section 3.2, it is essential for readers to have a flowchart that summarises the calculation methodology.
3. The size and quality of certain figures should be improved, such as Figures 19 and 22.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The lenguage is correct
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestions to our manuscript. Revisions were made on the manuscript as per your suggestions which we believe have cleared a few confusions in the original manuscript. The responses and main alterations are listed as below:
Question 1:
Reviewer: My only concern is that I don't see a description of the wooden structural elements mentioned in the abstract. It would be good for the reader to know the origin of the wood, the internal moisture content, the orientation of the fibres and other elements that are essential for the design of mixed structures.
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, we did not provide a detailed description of the timber structural units in the abstract. Since the prefabricated structure proposed in this paper is primarily composed of concrete materials, and only the core zone utilizes a mortise-tenon joint resemblance, so a detailed description of the timber components may not be necessary in the abstract.
Question 2:
Reviewer: By validating the finite element model presented in section 3.2, it is essential for readers to have a flowchart that summarises the calculation methodology.
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, we should include the steps for the loading mentioned in Reference [10] in this section. We have added this content in the revised manuscript.
Question 3:
Reviewer: The size and quality of certain figures should be improved, such as Figures 19 and 22.
Answer: As the reviewer indicated, the dimensions of some images in the manuscript were not appropriate, resulting in unsuitable font sizes within the images. We have revised and adjusted each image accordingly.
Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript, and we wish you all the best as well.
If you have any questions on this manuscript, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestions to our manuscript. Revisions were made on the manuscript as per your suggestions which we believe have cleared a few confusions in the original manuscript. The responses and main alterations are listed as below:
Question 1:
Reviewer: Abstract can be improved. It is suggested to highlight the aim or purpose and content of the study clearly with defining the novelty of this study. There is no balance between the essential parts of the abstract. In addition, the problem statement should be presented at the start of the abstract. It is also suggested to present some quantitative conclusions and statistical data in the abstract.
Answer: According to the reviewer's suggestions, we have made our best effort to revise the abstract. The revised abstract is provided below. We have primarily placed the questions at the beginning, stated the research purpose and content, and added some quantitative conclusions and analysis data at the end of the abstract.
Abstract: To further study the seismic performance of the internal joint, which is connected by the pre-stressed and mortise-tenon connection, the damage process and damage pattern of the internal joints under the horizontal load were analyzed using the refined numerical analysis model based on ABAQUS. Parametric analyses were conducted simultaneously for five parameters: axial compression ratio, the area and effective initial stress of unbonded prestressed strands (UPS), the local reinforcement ratio in the core zone of the joint, and the friction coefficient between the interface of concrete. The results showed that the joint exhibits excellent energy dissipation potential under horizontal loads, but the damage was concentrated in the core zone. The deformation of the joint mainly consisted of the self-deformation of the prefabricated components, including bending, bearing and shear, as well as the relative slip deformation between the prefabricated components. The axial compression ratio has a more significant effect on the hysteresis performance compared to the areas of the UPS and the reinforcement ratio. The initial effective stress of the UPS and the friction coefficient have relatively minor influence on the hysteretic performance of the joint. Finally, this paper recommends the design parameter values (axial compression ratio should not exceed 0.4, Area of unbonded prestressed reinforcement should be not lower than Asn0.02 and not higher than Asn=0.1, the initial stress of UPS takes the value of 0.75fpu) and outlines optimization measures.
Question 2:
Reviewer: It is better to insert a paragraph of highlighting the limitations and challenges of the numerical study.
Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, emphasizing the limitations and challenges of the numerical study can provide a more accurate and rigorous expression of the conclusions of this paper. Therefore, in accordance with the reviewer's request, we have added this part in Section 3 in revised manuscript.
Question 3:
Reviewer: Section 2 - Proposal of the new joint, first paragraph (Line 93-99) must be revised as it appears to closely resemble guidelines or templates rather than original content. It is imperative to avoid such errors when submitting to a journal, as it could impact the credibility of the manuscript.
Answer: Thank you very much for the thorough review. Due to our oversight, we failed to identify this paragraph during the proofreading process. We deeply apologize for this mistake. We have removed this section from the revised manuscript. Once again, we appreciate your feedback.
Question 4:
Reviewer: Line 56 starts with ‘the above study demostartes….’, without proper interconnection between the studies. Make it clear.
Answer: As mentioned by the reviewer, the phrase "the above study demonstrates..." in this paragraph lacks a clear referent. This portion should be merged with the preceding paragraph as a single paragraph. Due to our writing error, it was separated. We have combined them into one paragraph in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your thorough review.
Question 5:
Reviewer: Line 62, check the font size.
Answer: In the manuscript we submitted, there was inconsistency in the font of this section. We have made the necessary adjustments in the revised version.
Question 6:
Reviewer: In the analysis section, include the details of mesh sensitivity if it has been conducted and justify how the simplified two dimensional analysis results will work in 3D scenarios.
Answer: The reviewer conducted a detailed analysis of the numerical analysis model in our paper. Regarding mesh sensitivity, we conducted several attempts in the finite element model calculations (concrete mesh sizes set to 50, 80, and 100). The results showed minimal impact on the hysteresis curve and slight influence on the failure mode, but the overall effect was insignificant. Considering the sufficient computational power for the finite element model calculations of the joints, we uniformly selected a concrete mesh size of 50mm. However, this part of the content was not discussed in the manuscript.
In the finite element model, a two-dimensional loading method was utilized. Therefore, the results analysis in this paper mainly relied on the two-dimensional loading method. However, due to the particularity of the joint in our paper, the results obtained from the two-dimensional loading method may not fully reflect the stress conditions of the actual three-dimensional structure. A more detailed analysis of the three-dimensional structure will be further conducted in subsequent research.
Question 7:
Reviewer: Figures need to be cited in order. Figure 2 should be stated after the introduction of Figure 1. Also, the clarity of the Figures must be improved.
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, the order of Figure 2 and Figure 1 should be adjusted. In the revised manuscript, we have adjusted the order of Figure 2 and Figure 1 accordingly.
Question 8:
Reviewer: What is the relevance of discussing CDP in detail and providing Figure 3?
Answer: Figure 3 primarily shows the changes in stiffness damage under compressive and tensile loads for the concrete plastic damage model used in this study under cyclic loading.
Question 9:
Reviewer: In Figure 7 and 8, the reference 8 must be added within brackets.
Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their professional review comments. We have made detailed revisions to reference 8 in Figures 7 and 8.
Question 10:
Reviewer: Numerical analysis can be more eloborative. Also, it is recommended to insert a paragraph of highlighting the limitations and challenges of this study.
Answer: According to the reviewer's requirements, we have made corresponding supplements to each part of the numerical analysis. It also expresses the limitations and challenges of our research in Section 3.
Question 11:
Reviewer: In section 4, sub titles can be used for the sections such as (a) The tenon of the upper column and the followings to increase the clarity.
Answer: We fully accept the reviewer's suggestions and have included this section as sub titles in our revised manuscript.
Question 12:
Reviewer: Conclusion section must be more elaborative, explaining how the purpose is achieved by the study. It could be better organized if presented in bullet points. In the conclusion section, future directions and limitations are not covered.
Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's comments and completely agree with your perspective. In the conclusions section, we have incorporated the research objectives, rewritten the conclusions in bullet points, and highlighted the limitations of this study as well as future research directions based on your suggestions.
Question 13:
Reviewer: The article's English language usage could be improved by carefully checking and correcting any grammatical errors.
Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. During this round of proofreading, we identified this type of issue and made detailed revisions accordingly.
Question 14:
Reviewer: Authors should have a look on formatting the paper structure throughout the paper. Eg. Figure axis names and numbering, have consistent spacing between lines, and sections.
Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. During this round of proofreading, we identified this type of issue and made detailed revisions accordingly.
Question 15:
Reviewer: The notations/acronyms used in the figures and tables need to be introduced.
Answer: We appreciate the reviewer's comments. During this round of proofreading, we identified this type of issue and made detailed revisions accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, a novel prefabricated frame structure combined the mortise-tenon joints and prestressing strands was proposed. Finite element model was built to study the failure mechanism and the seismic performance. Parameter study was also conducted. The result shows that the novel prefabricated frame has a favorable performance. It is a comprehensive study.
The comments listed below can help authors to further improve the quality of the paper.
1) Figure 9: The line of ‘Skeleton curve of Experimenta’ is unclear in the legend. Please consider replacing it.
2) Section 3.2: The authors state that‘Figure.9 and Figure.10 (a) and (b) show the comparison between the test results inliterature and the calculation results of the finite model established by the material constitutive model and modeling technique used in this paper, respectively.’ What is the purpose of Figure 10 (c). Besides, Figure.9 is not very clear.
3) The authors state that ‘prefabricated structures have been one of the hottest topics in civil engineering, with various projects were developing towards prefabricated structures.’ This’s a good point.In fact, kinds of prefabricated structure have been paid attention to studed the sesmic performance in recent years. Please mention them: doi.org/10.1002/tal.1412; doi.org/10.1002/tal.1632.
4) Section 4.2: The authors state that ‘Further improvement of the shear capacity is the direction of the optimal design of the joints.’ Could you please analyze how to improve the shear capacity?
5) Figure 11: The legends of Fig.11 is unclear. Please consider replacing it.
minor revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagesounds good
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestions to our manuscript. Revisions were made on the manuscript as per your suggestions which we believe have cleared a few confusions in the original manuscript. The responses and main alterations are listed as below:
Question 1:
Reviewer: Figure 9: The line of ‘Skeleton curve of Experimental’ is unclear in the legend. Please consider replacing it.
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, some curves in Figure 9 of the manuscript were unclear. We have made corrections in the revised manuscript.
Question 2:
Reviewer: Section 3.2: The authors state that ‘Figure.9 and Figure.10 (a) and (b) show the comparison between the test results in literature and the calculation results of the finite model established by the material constitutive model and modeling technique used in this paper, respectively.’ What is the purpose of Figure 10 (c). Besides, Figure.9 is not very clear.
Answer: Figure 10(c) illustrates the distribution of tensile damage of the joint, reflecting the tensile cracking in the core region of the joint under cyclic horizontal loading. In conjunction with Figure 10(b), it represents the two types of material failure in the core region of the joint: tensile failure and compressive failure.
Question 3:
Reviewer: The authors state that ‘prefabricated structures have been one of the hottest topics in civil engineering, with various projects were developing towards prefabricated structures.’ This’s a good point. In fact, kinds of prefabricated structure have been paid attention to study the seismic performance in recent years. Please mention them: doi.org/10.1002/tal.1412; doi.org/10.1002/tal.1632.
Answer: As the reviewer mentioned, various types of prefabricated structures have received considerable attention in recent years to study the seismic performance. The literature cited by the reviewer offers valuable insights that enhance our understanding and exploration of the seismic resilience of prefabricated structures. We have included these references in this section.
Question 4:
Reviewer: Section 4.2: The authors state that ‘Further improvement of the shear capacity is the direction of the optimal design of the joints.’ Could you please analyze how to improve the shear capacity?
Answer: As pointed out by the reviewer, further enhancement of shear capacity is a key aspect of optimizing the design of the joint. However, we have not yet conducted systematic research on how to improve the shear carrying capacity of the joint. Nevertheless, considering the available methods, options such as employing UHPC or surrounding the joints with steel shells could be viable avenues for exploration.
Question 5:
Reviewer: Figure 11: The legends of Fig.11 is unclear. Please consider replacing it.
Answer: As pointed out by the reviewer, Figure 11 was not clear. We have replaced it with a clearer version in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript despite your busy schedule.
We are grateful to the reviewer for the suggestions to our manuscript. Revisions were made on the manuscript as per your suggestions which we believe have cleared a few confusions in the original manuscript. The responses and main alterations are listed as below:
Question 1:
Reviewer: Revise the abstract, do not start with ‘To further study the seismic performance....’
Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, our modifications are as follows.
This paper proposed a novel frame structural joint, which is connected by the pre-stressed and mortise-tenon connection.
Question 2:
Reviewer: Line 59, check the font size for ‘friction connections’
Answer: In the manuscript we submitted, there was inconsistency in the font of this section. We have made modifications this time. Thanks again for your careful review.
Question 3:
Reviewer: Section 2 - Proposal of the new joint, first paragraph (Line 94-99) must be revised as it appears to closely resemble guidelines or templates rather than original content. It is imperative to avoid such errors when submitting to a journal, as it could impact the credibility of the manuscript. The authors stated in their response that they had removed this section from the revised manuscript. However, upon reviewing the revised manuscript, it appears that the section in question is still present.
Answer: Thanks again for your careful review. Due to our mistake, we were unable to catch this error in time, and we made sure that the change was completed this time.
Question 4:
Reviewer: ‘The limitations and challenges of the study’ can be discussed after the conclusion section.
Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, we have adjusted the section of ‘The limitations and challenges of the study’ to follow the Conclusion section.
Question 5:
Reviewer: In Figure 7 and 8, just add [10], no need to write reference.
Answer: As suggested by the reviewer, our modifications are as follows.
Figure.7 Detailed diagram of the joint in prestressed prefabricated frame [10]
Figure.8 Finite element model corresponding to the joints [10]
Question 6:
Reviewer: The full list of results are presented using graphs and figures (Appendix A). However, the detailed explanation of how each graph contributes to the overall analysis, and what conclusions can be drawn from them, should be enclosed closer. Do not simply show a long list of figures. Explain them, what do the figures show, and why are they important?
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, we showed a long list of figures Appendix A, the reviewer wants us to provide a detailed explanation of how each graph contributes to the overall analysis and what conclusions can be drawn from them. As showed in Section 4.1 (Failure Process and Failure Type), Appendix A showed the failure process of the components of the joint. In section 4.1.1 (The tenon of the upper column), section 4.1.2 (Connection region of the one-piece beam-slabs) and section 4.1.3 (Lower frame column cups) explained the failure process and failure types of the different components of the joint. The conclusions about the failure process and failure type of the joint were all obtained through Appendix A. Prior to section 4.1.1, we declared the ‘Based on Appendix A, in order to further analyze the force mechanism in core region of the joint, the whole loading process of the components in the core region is analyzed.’ In the revised manuscript, we added the reminder about Appendix A in section 4.1.1-4.1.3.
Question 7:
Reviewer: Authors should have a look on formatting the paper structure throughout the paper. Eg. Figure axis names and numbering, have consistent spacing between lines, and sections.
Answer: As the reviewer pointed out, we have revised the entire structure of the paper, especially the formatting of some figures.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
