Response Characteristics of Pre-Stressed Strand Cables Subjected to Low-Velocity Impact: Experiment Test

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper experimentally investigates the deformation of pre-stressed stand cables under impact loading. Through this study, an understanding of the failure mechanism can be obtained. While the paper is overall well-written, its novelty is unclear because of a purely experimental study. Some critical comments below are provided as references to improve the paper's quality.

 

In the abstract, the authors only stated the general set-up of the experiment. However, what is the unique advantage of this setup? What is the background of such experimental testing (one or two sentences for a summary are required)? Is this the pioneering experimental measurement of pre-stressed cable deformation? What is the key challenge and how is the proposed solution? These are completely missing.

 

In the introduction, the authors pointed out that the cable testing under lateral loading has not been performed yet. What is the motivation of cable testing under lateral loading? Can it be tailored for a different application? From the experimental perspective, what is the difficulty in testing cable deformation under lateral loading as compared to that under axial loading? Some clarifications are needed

 

In 2.2, It is good to have a schematic to demonstrate the whole testing flow. Adding the additional image of the real test rig is suggested.

 

How does the tensile test result (2.1) serve subsequent testing setup? More narratives need to be appended for clarification.  

 

 

The experimental testing results captured by the high-speed camera have been thoroughly discussed. I am wondering if it is possible to add the numerical simulation result. This allows the extra discussion from a different angle. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The objective of this paper is investigating the response characteristics of pre-stressed strand cables, when subjected to low-velocity impact. In particular, the paper emphasizes the experiment test.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper, which includes all necessary sections (Introduction, Description of experiment, Response process and failure patterns, Discussion, Conclusions). Moreover, most of the sections are divided into several sub-sections, providing a more detailed description. Furthermore, all Figures, Diagrams and Tables, included in the manuscript are consistent with the extracted results. However, some corrections should be performed, which will overall enhance the paper. In particular:

Lines 8-16: The paper abstract is quite brief. Please, include more details about the extracted results, as well as the conclusions.

Lines 47-58: Although this is a theoretical paragraph of the “Introduction” section, no references are included. Please, cite the relative papers.

Lines 86-89: I suggest removing of this paragraph, as the paper structure is clear (no description is needed). Alternatively, it could be merged with the previous paragraph. In both cases, the paper objective should be mentioned at the end of the “Introduction” section. Please, apply.

Line 90: I suggest renaming this section into “Methods - Description of experiment”. This form is more comprehensive. Please, apply.

Line 125: Please, provide a more detailed description in the Figure 4 caption.

Line 130: Similarly, I suggest renaming this sub-section into “Materials - Test setup”. In addition, it could also be turned into a major section. Please, apply.

Line 181: Please, rename this section into “Results”. The sub-sections titles could be maintained.

Lines 227 and 229: Please, provide more detailed descriptions in the Figure 7 and 8 captions, respectively.

Line 430: Please, improve the resolution of Figure 15. It contains blur parts.

Line 526: The “Conclusions” section should be rewritten. In the present form, it resembles an abstract. In particular, this section should include a brief description of the entire paper and then the major concluding remarks should be listed (maybe numbering of the concluding remarks could be performed). Please, apply.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents the results of an experimental program consisting of testing to impact 63 prestressed strand steel cables at different levels of axial loading. The use and efficiency of strand cables are known in Civil Engineering infrastructures, so the mechanical behavior of these types of elements must be very well known especially in accidental cases of loadings like impact. The paper is well organized and the obtained data are presented in a good manner, leading to a good understanding by the readers.

1. I suggest the authors explain how the experimental research presented in their paper can be compared with other similar research.

2. In the experiment the length of the test specimen was the same for each of the test’s L=1524mm. Why this value? There is a dependency between cable diameter? Can be the stiffness of the cable affected by the cable length? Also, there is a dependency between cable length and prestress axial loading?

3. I suggest adding a supplementary figure with a loading schema of the specimen starting from figure 1. d, but with dimensions for the span, axial loads, and drop height of the indenter. This information is essential in order to can be repeated by other researchers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the significant revisions by the authors. My concerns have been addressed. So I recommend acceptance.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer suggestion for accept our manuscript.