The Action of Tornadoes on the Structural Elements of a Wooden Low-Rise Building Roof and Surrounding Objects—Review and Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper reports a computational study of the wind-induced vibration damage of a roof structure after the tornado in Fairburn based on the ultimate and serviceable limit states analyses. The main reasons that causing the roof structure failure are investigated. The main topic raised by this article is interesting and worth of investigation. The reviewer believes that this paper is meaningful and would suggest accept the paper for publication if the following comments are addressed.
1- Please authors highlight the original research work and the importance and necessity of this work.
2- Section 6.2.2.In this section, it is reported that the stress exceeds the characteristic value of the object material when the wind speed is close to 49.44m/s and the wind direction is in the W2 direction. However the specific wind speeds in this wind speed range are not presented in this paper. It is highly recommended that authors conduct a supplementary analysis in this section.
3-The quality of the figures can be improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the review. All suggestions were introduced. According to the all review's recommendations, changed parts of the manuscript were marked in Review mode as track changes, the previous version has been crossed out and the corrected one written next to it in red, incorrect drawings were removed and corrected ones were inserted in their place.
Please see the attachment there is point-by-point response for each comment.
Best regards,
Tomasz Lamparski,
Maciej Dutkiewicz
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
1. Please check your language spelling.
2. Title - no period.
3. Introduction - analyze in the table all literature results with the source.
4. There should be a separate theoretical model along with own research.
5. Drawings should be corrected into English.
6. Numeric data should be described in detail.
7. Develop the theoretical model.
8. Conclusions should be developed with concrete results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the review. All suggestions were introduced. According to the all review's recommendations, changed parts of the manuscript were marked in Review mode as track changes, the previous version has been crossed out and the corrected one written next to it in red, incorrect drawings were removed and corrected ones were inserted in their place.
Please see the attachment there is point-by-point response for each comment.
Best regards,
Tomasz Lamparski,
Maciej Dutkiewicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article The effect of a tornado on the structural elements of the roof of a low-rise wooden building and surrounding objects is clearly written and easy to read.
It is interesting for the reader, even if some facts should be modified.
The main objective of the article is to analyze a damaged single-family house and its surroundings after the Fairburn tornado (2018 in the USA) in order to estimate the maximum wind speed that caused the damage, based on the load-bearing and serviceability limit states, and to compare the obtained results with the tornado scales.
The article highlights the various possibilities of damage and discusses several places where potential damage could begin.
At the end, the performed calculations were summarized and measures were proposed resulting from the visible trends.
The article is written on 21 pages, applies knowledge from 64 literary sources. It contains 6 tables and 17 pictures, the pictures are clear, the reader can easily navigate the text. However, some images would need to be edited.
The article takes on the character of a case study. The authors focus on one particular family house, which was exposed to the excessive effects of wind. The achieved results are analyzed according to the applicable regulations (Eurocodes).
The article is divided into: 1. Introduction 2. Tornadoes in 2015-2021 3. Fairburn tornado study 4. Building analysis 5. Numerical analysis results and comparison of strong wind analysis with real tornado action 6. Conclusions;
I have comments on the content and content.
• Given that it is a case study, I would put this fact in the title of the post;As an introduction, it would be appropriate to add research methods.
• In the introductory parts, it would be appropriate to supplement the flow diagram of the research;
• The authors state that the novelty of the article is: validation of a numerical model describing the response of the roof structure to a tornado, estimation of wind speed based on the degree of damage to the building based on the EF scale, analysis of limit states of bearing capacity and serviceability of the connection of the rafter to the horizontal beam;
• In the given case, it is not a novelty (novelties). It would be appropriate to generalize the conclusions. Find something that is valid for all cases (take some lessons).
• In Figure 3, it would be appropriate to describe both the x-axis and the y-axis so that it is clear at first glance that it is the number of tornadoes
• In Figure 4, enlarge the scale for the description of the color scales to make it clear; • Figure 10 shows the surface pressures caused by a wind speed of 22 m/s, Figure 11 shows the bending moments in the truss, it is not clear where the section of the building (roof, truss) is indicated in Fig. 10;
• Is it about every solid binding -……?
• The entire article acts as a sample example from a textbook and not as a scientific contribution.
• As already mentioned, it is necessary to emphasize what is new in the contribution. It is necessary to find something new. (how should buildings be designed in such a location, how should the details look, in calculations it is necessary to think with the coefficient... etc.)
• Reflect on conclusions and re-evaluate current conclusions.
I recommend publishing after necessary corrections.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the review. All suggestions were introduced. According to the all review's recommendations, changed parts of the manuscript were marked in Review mode as track changes, the previous version has been crossed out and the corrected one written next to it in red, incorrect drawings were removed and corrected ones were inserted in their place.
Please see the attachment there is point-by-point response for each comment.
Best regards,
Tomasz Lamparski,
Maciej Dutkiewicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, please just enter the data that you entered into the theoretical and numerical model.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the review.
Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.
Best regards,
Tomasz Lamparski, Maciej Dutkiewicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors approached the review responsibly. After editing, I recommend publishing the post in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for the review.
Please see the attachment for a point-by-point response.
Best regards,
Tomasz Lamparski, Maciej Dutkiewicz
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
