Comparison of the Influence of Double-Limb Double-Plate Joint on the Stability Bearing Capacity of Triangular and Quadrilateral Transmission Tower Structures
, Aimin Li 2, Hong Yan 3, Lei Zhang 2,3, Zhiwen Lan 4, Mojia Huang 4 and Han Wu 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
1. In abstract, the type of load condition which you applied for this study was not found. It was recommended to include those details with the abstract.
2. In abstract, the details of support condition was missed. Justify the reason of omitting support condition in abstract.
3. Have you investigate the intensity of wind acting on the transmission tower. If so kindly discuss its details. If not kindly justify the reason to avoid it.
4. The details which you discuss in introduction was not sufficient and most of the lines are found irrelevant to this study. It was advise to include the few more line which are relavant to this study.
5. During citation, either you numbering or name of author. During including both, it will looks like congested. It was recommended to follow any one citation style.
6. In figure 1 and figure 2, the steel tower which you taken as symmetrical section from the base to top. But in practically, most of the tower are constructed in unsymmetrical section which is having wide bottom and sharpe top edge. May I know, what the reason behind to choose this kind of section in your study.
7. The simulations, which you created for this study was excellent and appreciable
8. In conclusion, it is necessary to discuss about the parameter which given in the previous points to improve the quality and clearance of your article for future reference.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript (ID: buildings-1711300).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which marked in orange labeled part in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In abstract, the type of load condition which you applied for this study was not found. It was recommended to include those details with the abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. This paper mainly studies the stability bearing capacity of the tower under vertical load. According to the comment, add a description of vertical loads in the abstract to ensure the rigor of my manuscript. Please find the orange labeled part of the full manuscript for details. ( [T. 1-10] r1 point 1 )
Point 2: In abstract, the details of support condition was missed. Justify the reason of omitting support condition in abstract.
Response 2: The bottom of the tower leg is connected with the foundation through the tower foot plate. It can be considered that the bottom of the tower leg is a fixed support. Therefore, in the calculation, the tower structure can be simplified as a cantilever structure, and there is no lateral support.
Point 3: Have you investigate the intensity of wind acting on the transmission tower. If so kindly discuss its details. If not kindly justify the reason to avoid it.
Response 3: The wind acting on the transmission tower belongs to horizontal load action. This paper mainly discusses the effect of the vertical load. I will consider your suggestion as the next research direction. Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 4: The details which you discuss in introduction was not sufficient and most of the lines are found irrelevant to this study. It was advise to include the few more line which are relavant to this study.
Response 4:According to the suggestions, Summarize the existing research, and add the relevant research of the DLDPJ. Please find the orange labeled part of the full manuscript for details. ( [T. 11] r1 point 4 )
Point 5: During citation, either you numbering or name of author. During including both, it will looks like congested. It was recommended to follow any one citation style.
Response 5: Since the journal has a fixed annotation format for references, the relevant formats of references have been adjusted according to the requirements of the journal.
Point 6: In figure 1 and figure 2, the steel tower which you taken as symmetrical section from the base to top. But in practically, most of the tower are constructed in unsymmetrical section which is having wide bottom and sharpe top edge. May I know, what the reason behind to choose this kind of section in your study.
Response 6: This paper mainly focuses on the research on the effect of the DLDPJ in the basic tower cell, so the tower model is simplified. First, the vertical stability bearing capacity of the basic cell is theoretically deduced, and the influence of the DLDPJ is further introduced. The difference of the effect of the DLDPJ on the triangular and quadrilateral tower can be obtained. According to the suggestions, unsymmetrical section tower can be used as a new focus for relevant research in the next step.
Point 7: The simulations, which you created for this study was excellent and appreciable
Response 7: Thank you for your appreciation of the simulations of my manuscript. At the same time, thank you for your valuable suggestions.
Point 8: In conclusion, it is necessary to discuss about the parameter which given in the previous points to improve the quality and clearance of your article for future reference.
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comments, which have been revised according to your professional comments.
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. We hope that the correction will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions。
Thank you and best regards.
P.S. : The file in the attachment is the modified article. Please check it.
Date of this response
30 May 2022
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents the influence of the axial stiffnesses of connection joints, and the theoretical calculation expression of the stable bearing capacities of triangular and quadrilateral lattice towers is derived from the energy method. Some general conclusions are given and potentially helpful for researchers and engineers in the relevant areas. In the reviewer’s opinion, the paper should be minor modified before the paper is accepted, and the authors were suggested to clarify the following aspects:
1. Figure 1, the height of the tower internode, d, should be added to the picture. The annotations of the axial force symbol of the member are also suggested to be noted in the figure.
2. Some of the subscript annotations are in the form of shape symbols, such as â–³ and â—‡, and it is recommended that they be changed to numbers or letters to make them easier for readers to read or pronounce.
3. The planar approach is currently used to calculate the theoretical equation. It is suggested to explain how the possible torsional effects of the actual structure are considered and whether this part is a research assumption or limitation.
4. In Figure 4, please state the reasons why the authors take ζ=1/5 to calculate the stable bearing capacities of triangular and quadrilateral lattice towers as the reference bearing capacities, whether the value matches the actual structure or engineering application.
5. Section 4.3, it is recommended to supplement the experimental test contents and present the test results in the form of graphs and charts with reference to the numerical analysis charts.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editors and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript (ID: buildings-1711300).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revisions which marked in orange labeled part in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Figure 1, the height of the tower internode, d, should be added to the picture. The annotations of the axial force symbol of the member are also suggested to be noted in the figure.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. According to the comment, modify figure 1 and figure 2, and note the axial force symbol of the model. Please find the relevant changes in figure 1 and figure 2.
Point 2: Some of the subscript annotations are in the form of shape symbols, such as â–³ and â—‡, and it is recommended that they be changed to numbers or letters to make them easier for readers to read or pronounce.
Response 2:According to the suggestion, replace â–³ with letter t and â—‡ with letter q. Please find the changes in my manuscript.
Point 3: The planar approach is currently used to calculate the theoretical equation. It is suggested to explain how the possible torsional effects of the actual structure are considered and whether this part is a research assumption or limitation.
Response 3: This paper mainly studies the stability bearing capacity of the tower under vertical load. Through the energy method and joint test, the theoretical calculation expressions of vertical stability bearing capacity of triangular and quadrilateral towers considering the influence of joints are obtained. The torque action you mentioned can be used as the direction of the next step of research, and the influence of the joint effect under the torque action can be studied. Thank you for your suggestion.
Point 4: In Figure 4, please state the reasons why the authors take ζ=1/5 to calculate the stability bearing capacities of triangular and quadrilateral lattice towers as the reference bearing capacities, whether the value matches the actual structure or engineering application.
Response 4: In the calculation example, the area of the diagonal member is 1/5 of the area of the leg member, and the stiffness of the connection joint is generally greater than that of the diagonal member. Therefore, the equivalent area of the connection joint is taken as the area of the diagonal member, that is, ζ=1/5. The vertical stability bearing capacity is calculated as the benchmark for comparison.
Point 5: Section 4.3, it is recommended to supplement the experimental test contents and present the test results in the form of graphs and charts with reference to the numerical analysis charts.
Response 5:According to the suggestions, the test contents of SLSPJ and DLDPJ are supplemented, and the test results are given in Fig.17. The values of κs and κd are given by summarizing the test results. Please find the orange labeled part of the full article for details. ( [T. 12] r2 point 5 )
We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. We hope that the correction will meet with approval. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions。
Thank you and best regards.
P.S. : The file in the attachment is the modified article. Please check it.
Date of this response
30 May 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
The corrections which you have done was appreciated, however kindly ensure the grammer and spelling before futhur proceeding.
