Seismic Behavior of Flange-Web Welded Plate Connections in Tubular and Concrete-Filled Columns Using Finite Element Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study the seismic performance of flange-web welded plate connections in steel tubular columns using numerical methods. The methodology involves replacing standard structure with those reflecting actual construction practices in Ecuador and evaluating the performance of connections under simulated seismic loads. The findings suggest that while the connections do not meet the flexural strength criterion at a rotation of 0.04 rad, they perform satisfactorily at 0.02 rad, making them viable for intermediate frame-type buildings in areas of moderate seismicity.

 

Major Issues

Methodological Concerns: Details on the accuracy of the models, potential sources of error, and limitations in the simulation process should be included to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the reliability of this paper. For example, this paper assumes the fracture will not happen at the weld. This assumption do not have any reference to support.

 

Comparison with reference specimen: The paper does not sufficiently explore alternative connection designs that might achieve better seismic performance. Discussing alternatives could offer valuable insights into the optimization of connection designs for seismic resilience.

 

Minor Issues

 

Clarity of Figures and Tables: Some figures and tables in the manuscript are difficult to interpret due to their size or resolution. Enhancing these visual elements for clarity would greatly benefit the reader's understanding.

 

Expansion on Practical Implications: The discussion could benefit from a more detailed exploration of the practical implications of the findings. Specifically, how these connections could be implemented in construction practices and their cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The PDF document contains numerous typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies. Although the formatting appears correct in the LaTeX file, it lacks images. Additionally, various grammatical errors and typos require proofreading.  

A comprehensive edit is essential to enhance the manuscript's overall quality and professionalism.

Author Response

Respected reviewer:
In response to your observations and suggestions, we have included details in the work about the accuracy of the models, possible sources of error, and limitations in the simulation process. A comparison with alternative connection designs has also been included.

The quality of the figures was improved, and their number was reduced. Necessary changes were also made to some of the tables.

A section has also been added where we explain practical implications.
A review and correction of spelling and English grammar was carried out.

We deeply appreciate the review work carried out by you, which allowed us to significantly improve the document.

We attach the revised version of the manuscript, in pdf format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A few editorial comments: 
E1-1. It is evident that something has gone wrong during submission and disarrayed your manuscript. In resubmission, make sure the MS is correctly converted to PDF. It was quite difficult for me to read. 

E1-2. The artwork quality is poor. Often very poor. Please make sure these are substantially improved. It can be often fixed with a different way of pasting your images onto the paper. I suggest you provide source images in resubmission for the editorial team to have means for improving. 

E2. Please ensure consistency in the terms you have used throughout the manuscript. Ensure notions are first defined ahead of their appearance e.g., moment frame, special moment frame (SMF), and intermediate moment frame (IMF). Help the reader not get confused.

E3. You have given an overview of the FE analysis; further clarification on model parameters, boundary conditions, and material properties would be of benefit to readers. I think it would be essential.

Queries:

Q1. How do you explain the strain-rate dependency for steel/concrete under seismic loading conditions? How, if at all, does it affect the use of linear or non-linear material models?
I appreciate that this is quite a complicated matter to address. Maybe in scopes/limitations if you have not much to add here?

Q2. Your emphasis is on flange-web welded plate connections, but there is limited discussion on these connections. For example, I see the von Mises stress distributions but not sufficient analysis of stress concentrations or locations of potential failure within the connections.

Q3. How did you implement the boundary conditions in the FE models? This piece of information is critical but in the current manuscript, slim.

Q4. What can be the effect of local buckling on the overall seismic performance of the connections? how about damping effects and the implications on the capacity for energy dissipation at connections?

•  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is readable, practical, and understandable. 

Author Response

Respected reviewer:
In response to your observations and suggestions, we have included details in the article about the strain-rate dependency for steel/concrete under seismic loading conditions, and a broader analysis of the connections. We have also delved into the implementation of border conditions and damping effects and the implications on the capacity for energy dissipation at connections.

The quality of the figures was improved, and their number was reduced. Necessary changes were also made to some of the tables.

A section has also been added where we explain practical implications.
A review and correction of spelling and English grammar was carried out.

We deeply appreciate the review work carried out by you, which allowed us to significantly improve the document.

We attach the revised version of the manuscript, in pdf format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are suggested to get more trainings about academic writing.

The research gap and research significance are missing.

The authors are suggested to follow the format of this journal when submitting this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive professional language editing is required.

Author Response

Respected reviewer:
In response to your observations and suggestions, we have included the suggested improvements.

The quality of the figures was improved, and their number was reduced. Necessary changes were also made to some of the tables.

We have included additional comments on the research gap and its importance. A section has also been added where we explain practical implications.
A review and correction of spelling and English grammar were carried out.

We deeply appreciate the review work carried out by you, which allowed us to significantly improve the document.

We attach the revised version of the manuscript, in pdf format.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well written and despite some minor mistakes that do not affect the quality of the article, it can be published in this journal after minor revisions.

- f’ represents what? it is not calculated in the other tables 2, 3 and 5. Likewise, the terms PM-S, PM-I, PC, PCT-S, PCT-I,... must be literally defined,  especially for those which are not in this area of ​​research.- In figure 4, please indicate in each case the type of grouting materials

- The table 5 is empty, no content; Kindly correct it please

Author Response

We appreciate your observations and recommendations, and we thank you for them. In the updated manuscript [A-S Freddy (with identified changes)], what was added appears with green letters, while what was removed appears with red letters.

Comment 1.

- f’ represents what? it is not calculated in the other tables 2, 3 and 5. Likewise, the terms PM-S, PM-I, PC, PCT-S, PCT-I,... must be literally defined,  especially for those which are not in this area of ​​research.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included all definitions.  

Comment 2.

-In figure 4, please indicate in each case the type of grouting materials.

This comment is not clear to us.

Comment 3.

- The table 5 is empty, no content; Kindly correct it, please

In the pdf file, Table 5 is correct. It is possible that, in the Word file, the information in this table was lost when converting from pdf to Word.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

After reading your manuscript titled "Seismic behaviour of flange-web welded plate connections in tubular and concrete-filled columns using finite element analysis" I have the following comments.

In general, the manuscript needs to be rewritten according to the author's instructions and the template provided by this journal. The manuscript should be carefully prepared before submitting it. The authors should have considered the uniformity of the manuscript, i.e., the letter type and size and quality of the figures, to mention some examples.

Particular comments:
- The authors should clearly state the contribution of their work to global knowledge.
- In line 34, what are WCFSTCs?
- Lines 34-37 are repetitive.
- Lines 57-58, avoid the use of footnotes. Consider that not all the readers of this journal can read manuscripts written in Spanish.
-In lines 93-94, the authors should briefly describe the method (or equations) used to obtain the design spectrum.
- Line 95, what is "tubulares considerando efectos bidireccionales”: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/147494"?
- Figure 1, the legends are difficult to read
- Line 100, the equation is not properly displayed
- Table 5, the text is not displayed
- Line 149, the line "according to the study presented in." is incomplete
- Figures 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the authors should improve the quality of the figures since the legends are difficult to read
- Line 199, are there any reference for this?
- Line 258, what is Mp?
- In section 5 Results and Discussion, the authors should improve the discussion of their results.
- Section 5.2 Plastification mechanism, these results need to be analyzed and discussed in depth.
- In section 6 Conclusions, the authors should concentrate on their main findings. The discussion of the results should be presented in the correspondent section, for example, the text in lines 333-337.

Author Response

We appreciate your observations and recommendations, and we thank you for them. In the updated manuscript [A-S Freddy (with identified changes)], what was added appears with green letters, while what was removed appears with red letters.

Comment 1.

-The authors should clearly state the contribution of their work to global knowledge.

We agree with this comment. We have enriched what is related to the contribution of the work both in the results and discussion section and in the conclusions section.  

Comment 2.

• In line 34, what are WCFSTCs?

We agree with this comment. We have included all the necessary nomenclature for this and the other acronyms.

Comment 3.
- Lines 34-37 are repetitive.

We agree with this comment. The repeated sentence has been removed.

Comment 4.
- Lines 57-58, avoid the use of footnotes. Consider that not all the readers of this journal can read manuscripts written in Spanish.

We agree with this comment. Footers have been removed.

Comment 5.
-In lines 93-94, the authors should briefly describe the method (or equations) used to obtain the design spectrum.

We agree with this comment. We have included a section in which the method is described in greater detail, supported by a new figure and the necessary equations.

Comment 6.
- Line 95, what is "tubulares considerando efectos bidireccionales”: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/147494"?

We agree with this comment. All text in Spanish was removed, while still providing the possibility of accessing information that could be important to readers.

Comment 7.
- Figure 1, the legends are difficult to read.

We agree with this comment. We improved the sharpness of all figures.

Comment 8.
- Line 100, the equation is not properly displayed

This comment is not clear to us. According to the line enumeration itself, in the pdf file that is generated when using the Latex template that we have downloaded from MPDI, no equation appears.

Comment 9.
- Table 5, the text is not displayed.

It is possible that this comment has the same origin as the previous one. That is, we edited the article in the scientific text editor Overleaf, available online. With this editor, a pdf file is generated. And we have had difficulties converting this pdf file to Word format. It is possible that during this conversion process, the information in Table 5 is lost (incomprehensible to us).

In the pdf file generated directly by the system, this table is seen correctly.

Comment 10.
- Line 149, the line "according to the study presented in." is incomplete.

We agree with this comment. We have fixed this bug.

Comment 11.
- Figures 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, the authors should improve the quality of the figures since the legends are difficult to read.

We agree with this comment. We have improved the quality of the figures.

Comment 12.
- Line 199, are there any reference for this?

We agree with this comment. A reference has been included

Comment 13.
- Line 258, what is Mp?

We agree with this comment. We have included all the necessary nomenclature for this and the other acronyms.

Comment 14.
- In section 5 Results and Discussion, the authors should improve the discussion of their results.

We agree with this comment. We have improved this section.

Comment 15.
- Section 5.2 Plastification mechanism, these results need to be analyzed and discussed in depth.

We agree with this comment. We have analyzed more broadly this mechanism.

Comment 16.
- In section 6 Conclusions, the authors should concentrate on their main findings. The discussion of the results should be presented in the correspondent section, for example, the text in lines 333-337.

We agree with this comment. We have improved this section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my comments and I hope you did find these useful. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good. 

Author Response

Comments: Thanks for addressing my comments and I hope you did find these useful. 

Thank you very much for your review. We attach the manuscript with the changes identified in green letters. Text removed from the manuscript is identified with red letters. All modifications resulting from the suggestions and observations of all reviewers are included.

Comments: Thanks for addressing my comments and I hope you did find these useful. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my comments.