Research on Equivalent Static Load of High-Rise/Towering Structures Based on Wind-Induced Responses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REVIEW

on article

Research on Equivalent Static Load of High-Rise/Towering structures Based on Wind-Induced Responses

 

Junhui Yang, Junfeng Zhang and Chao Li

 

SUMMARY

The article deals with the problem of calculating the equivalent static load of high-rise tower structures under the influence of wind. The authors formulate a dynamic problem in the form of a system of material points and connections between them with elastic and damping properties. Accordingly, the problem was set in a linear formulation.

This task is of interest, since the dynamic response of high-rise and large-span structures is an urgent task and the determination of the resonant frequencies of a building under stochastic loads makes it possible to identify dangerous modes.

The authors formulated this problem using the ANSIS software to compare theoretical results with FEM data.

References list comprises 24 sources.

However, the article needs serious revision and correction of the shortcomings, which are listed below. Their elimination will improve the quality of the article and make it more interesting for readers.

 

COMMENTS

1. The author must redo the Abstract and bring it in compliance with the requirements of the Applied Sciences journal. The scientific problem is not described (Background). The scientific novelty is not indicated. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The Abstract should be an objective representation of the article.
2. What is this article for? The modern methods of numerical analysis allow us to calculate structures in a dynamic formulation.
3. The article declares a new method for calculating the load factor from wind gusts. I don't see the novelty. The given expressions are known and used in practice.
4. The abbreviation (MGLF, QGLF, etc.) must be disclosed immediately at the first mention
5. "In the past, the wind loads of structures were mainly determined directly by anemometers, but the method ignored the interaction between wind and structures and did not consider the spatial correlation of wind loads." This phrase needs to be rewritten. In world practice, the interaction of wind and structures is certainly considered.
6. "The advantage of the frequency domain method is that it can give a clear expression resulting in small time-consuming calculation, the disadvantageous is that only the approximate solution of the resonance response can be obtained for multi-degree-of-freedom structures, leading to the impossibility of the determination of each order models influence." This phrase needs to be rebuilt, because it is the frequency response that makes it possible to determine local and global resonant frequencies.
7. Dear authors, I recommend in the last paragraph of the Introduction to clearly state the purpose and novelty of the study.
8. The Introduction section is quite short. It should be more clear what problem the study is solving. Of the 24 sources, only 5 were published after 2018. I recommend adding 5-10 up-to-date sources, including those from MDPI.
9. In equation (4), P(z,t) does not depend on the summation index i, and it can be taken out of the sign of the sum. However, in the final part it turns out that there is the dependence on i. In so on, in the text with other variables.
10. Check Equation (10). Index i is missing in the expression for σ_T. The spectrum of S_yi must be strictly positive, possibly the sign of the modulus is missing.
11. What is the physical meaning of the terms σ_B, σ_R, σ_BR? Please, explain. If you add these terms according to the rule of eq. (11), they must be orthogonal.
12. In equation (23) GLF(z), and in (24) GLF. Be consistent, add (z)
13. Figure 3. An interesting fact. In accordance with formula (24), GLF at the point z=0 should be equal to 1. According to the graph, it is very different from 1. Please, give an explanation why the foundation of the building experiences gusts of wind?
14. Section 5 is not really a Discussion, but a Conclusion.
15. I recommend redoing section 5. Conclusion, considering the comments above.
16. The List of Literature must be written in accordance with the requirements of the Applied Sciences journal.
17. Many sources are missing from the citation databases, like Scopus and Web of Science. Please, provide doi or links to publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

[In abstract]

1) ‘…are studied theoretically…’. Please be careful to use ‘theoretically’, because no analytical analysis is conducted.

2) what do you mean by ‘the results of each response…’?

3) Too many sentence segments are used in abstract. Please consider modify.

 

[In the introduction]

4) The studies about wind-induced vibration in various engineering backgrounds should be mentioned in the literature review, such as the bridge[*1], rail engineering[*2], wind turbine[*3].

[*1] Scanlan, R.H. The action of flexible bridges under wind, II: Buffeting theory. J. Sound Vib. 1978, 60, 201–211.

[*2] Song, Y.; Zhang, M.; Øiseth, O.; Rønnquist, A. Wind deflection analysis of railway catenary under crosswind based on nonlinear finite element model and wind tunnel test. Mech. Mach. Theory 2022, 168.

[*3] Rahman, Mahmudur, et al. "Performance enhancement of wind turbine systems with vibration control: A review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015): 43-54.

 

5) Please indicate the difference between theoretical analysis and numerical simulation.

 

[In section II]

6) Eq. (1) shows an equation of motion instead of a dynamic equation.

7) It looks no information is given about how to obtain the equation (1) with the application object as presented in Fig 1.

8) Is there any evidence can be provided to validate the numerical model as shown in Fig 1? More details of this model should be given to convince the readers.

 

[In section IV]

9) It looks like no comparative analysis is provided to demonstrate the advantage of the present method. How do you claim the novelty of this work?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "Research on Equivalent Static Load of High-Rise/Towering structures Based on Wind-Induced Responses" reports an interesting work about the evaluation of the horizontal actions due to the wind on tall-building or tower-like structures. The authors analyze in detail the different components of the wind action proposing different evaluation methods. The approaches are also applied to a case study. The topic of the manuscript is current and of considerable interest both to the scientific community and to designers. Despite the approaches are clearly described in the text, the paper needs some improvements before it is published.

• Introduction: in "The main research method of the structural wind-induced response study includes theoretical analysis, field measurements, wind tunnel experiments and numerical simulations" consider as reported in 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.02.053, 10.1016/j.istruc.2017.09.008, 10.12989/sss.2014.13.3.473, 10.1016/j.jweia.2009.10.013, 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109352, 10.1155/2017/2031248
• Check the Eq. 15 (z and x appear to be reversed)
• Section 2.3: better describe the geometry and the mechanical properties of the case study, inserting the different values in tables
• Section 2.3: to better highlight the differences in terms of frequencies obtained, enter the values in a Table indicating the percentage of deviation
• Section 2.3: justify the value of Rayleigh damping used (1%). 
• The chapter of conclusions is missing where the innovative aspects of the work are highlighted

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All my comments were considered, and appropriate corrections were made in the text. The article looks much better. I recommend article for publishing.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted in present form