Fatigue Performance Test and Numerical Analysis of Composite Girders with CSW-CFST Truss Chords

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the present paper we study the fatigue behaviour of Composite girders with corrugated steel webs and concrete-filled steel tubular.  Overall, it is a well-written paper that provides scientific value. However, before it can be published, a number of changes have to be made.

Line 27 and 28: although the acronym CSW-CFST has been indicated in the abstract, it should be included again in the text.

Line 207 three point extrapolation: Do you consider that the stress profile close to a weld could have such a shape? Based on your diagram, the maximum peak is at a distance of about 2 mm from the weld instead of at the weld.

Figures 9 and 10 can be combined into a single figure.

Figure 11: indicate what type of strain is being drawn (mean value, amplitude, maximum value....), as the strain will be a curve when subjected to fatigue.

In all graphs, put the units between brackets, as you have drawn your graphs it looks like it is divided by the units.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General remark.

The article presents the results of the next stage of research on Composite Girders with CSW-CFST Truss Chords. The authors investigate the influence of concrete filling in the chord on the fatigue performance of composite girders with CSW-ST truss chords. Fatigue performance test and numerical analysis were conducted. In general, I evaluate the article positively. I am only asking for a minor revision and to include detailed comments. The most important of them is the fact that the authors of the article repeatedly refer to Master Thesis [11]. Meanwhile, its author is not the co-author of the work submitted for review. This requires clarification before publication. Moreover, one of the aims of this article concerns computational analysis. Unfortunately, there is no basic information on how to carry it out - the name of the software, applied finite elements, etc. The conclusions need to be improved and specified. An additional review of the global literature is also recommended. Many of the references cited are exclusively in Chinese, and some are not even generally available.

 

Detailed comments.

Line 51: both (a) and (b) descriptions are the same

Line 101: no dimensions of the U-profile. Additionally 31o should be replaced by 31°

Line 125 and further: I suggest not using a comma as a thousandth separator. This can be confusing to many readers

Line 299: (b) Vertical axis title in Chinese.

Line 319: Figure should be enlarged.

Line 331: Tthere is no basic information on how to carry it out - the name of the software, applied finite elements, etc. Does the used FE is equipped with 6DOF?

Line: 345: What are the names of Glue and Touch methods given by literature?

Line 363: In the vicinity of the hot spot, the dimensions of the finite elements should also be given as relative to the dimensions of the plates being welded

Line 382: There is no information on which method was used to determine the stresses, 1, 2 or 3 points. How the points for the FEM extrapolation were taken

Line 402: “and” is not necessary

Line 409: In Figure 23, the index is b, not w

Line 434: The horizontal axis unit “/mm” is confusing. Moreover for the angle “/mm” is wrong. For which bridge the results are - the diameter Dc = 600 ÷ 960mm in Fig. (A), and the thicknesses (b) and (c) do not agree with the test object from Table 1.

 

 

References:

[3], [17-21], [31] In Chinese only.

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [24], [27] Publication not available on-line.

[11] Publication not available on-line. The authors of the article repeatedly refer to Master Thesis [11]. Meanwhile, its author is not the co-author of the work submitted for review. Please explain.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx