Numerical Simulation of T Joints Constructed from Hollow Steel Sections

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

It is with regret that I must inform you that I do't consent to the publication of the article in the form you have presented. There are several substantive shortcomings in the article, but most importantly, the article exhibits signs of self-plagiarism, relying on your previous article ("Analysis of Hollow Section 'Y' Connections with the Application of Non-Linear Material Modeling"). In the reviewed article, you have only changed the object of research. Some of the content is identical to that of the previous article. Even the cited articles are mostly the same. The research material presented in the reviewed article should represent another variant of the previously published article. This is a very poor practice that casts a negative light on the type of science promoted.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your helpful and well-intentioned suggestions. We are sorry that your rating is negative. This work is part of our wider research and we wanted to make it available to the public with the aim of contributing at least a little to scientific research in this area. We will do our best to make our future research more thorough.

This paper represents a continuation of the investigation of the behavior of T bonds, which have other specificities compared to Y bonds, as presented in the mentioned paper. T connections in steel behave in a different way compared to Y connections, which further motivated us for further research, the fracture mechanism is different, the boundary conditions of fracture and deformation are more specific compared to the Y type connections. Unlike the Y connections in the previous work, we had to solve the observed specificities by adding another experimental method - using strain gages so that we could see the different behavior of these types of connections. Thanks again  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the application of non-linear numerical analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of "T" connections is demonstrated. A non-linear material model is used into the analysis. A comparative study between experimentally obtained results and numerically computed ultimate bearing capacities are carried out to validate the applicable steel modeling method.

The results of this study are clear. I suggest the article to be accepted in present form.

Date of this review

26 February. 2024

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your review, your suggestions were very useful and contributed to making our manuscript even better. Sincerely, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Correct affiliations according to the journal's instructions.

2. The abstract lacks a summary of the main achievements of the work.

3. Line: 25 - I believe it meant "local defroamtion." Please check the article carefully for spelling, English, and grammar.

4. Lines: 64-86 - The Authors focus on referring to one publication (by the way theirs), while the Introduction section lacks a broader reference to other publications on the subject.

5. In Chapter 4, the results obtained are well described and compared with the experimental ones. However, in-depth analysis and discussion are slightly missing.

6. The conclusions are a bit too elaborate. It would have been better to include the most important achievements and findings of work in a few bullet points and move the rest of the information as part of the analysis of results.

7. To summarize, the manuscript presents interesting results, but focuses only on comparing FEM simulation with experiment. What is missing is a clear indication of the novelty of the results presented, or in other words, how the given results differ from previously published comparative studies in this field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is suggested that the manuscript be carefully grammar and spell-checked before possible publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your review, your suggestions were very useful and contributed to making our manuscript even better. 

1. Correct affiliations according to the journal's instructions.The affiliations are corrected.
2. The abstract lacks a summary of the main achievements of the work. The sumarry of the main achievments of the work was added to the abstract.
3. Line: 25 - I believe it meant "local defroamtion." Please check the article carefully for spelling, English, and grammar.Confirmative. The phrase is corrected.
4. Lines: 64-86 - The Authors focus on referring to one publication (by the way theirs), while the Introduction section lacks a broader reference to other publications on the subject.Additional literature references were analyzed and added to this section.
5. In Chapter 4, the results obtained are well described and compared with the experimental ones. However, in-depth analysis and discussion are slightly missing.The Discussion and Conclusion sections are reorganized and the discussion is widened.
6. The conclusions are a bit too elaborate. It would have been better to include the most important achievements and findings of work in a few bullet points and move the rest of the information as part of the analysis of results.This section is modified, and only the most important findings of the work were pointed out.
7. To summarize, the manuscript presents interesting results, but focuses only on comparing FEM simulation with experiment. What is missing is a clear indication of the novelty of the results presented, or in other words, how the given results differ from previously published comparative studies in this field.This point is addressed in the modified conclusions.

It is suggested that the manuscript be carefully grammar and spell-checked before possible publication.

Sincerely, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Numerical Simulation of T Joints Constructed from Hollow Steel Sections” details the application of non-linear numerical analysis to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of "T" connections. The authors have compared the obtained experimental results with the numerically computed methods. Although numerical simulation of T joints has been reported in many literatures recently, the insight in no linear numerical analysis and comparative study between experimental data with simulation provides new information for the readers. However, the authors need to address the following comments before publication.

1. Abstract is very precise, more information about the study is needed here and a statement of the novelty of this manuscript is required. It is also encouraged to include the significant result of this work.

2. Typos should be checked such as in subheading 2. Experimental research section, the first line hollow is mentioned as "hol-low".

3. The conclusion is too vague and looks like another discussion part. It would be better to highlight the most important outcome of the work and its future direction.

4. The number of references is low, it would be better to include at least 10 more references.

 

Typo errors:

 

 

I would suggest the authors to italize “et al” throughout the manuscript. Spacing should be given between Yue et al and have after figure 12 line no 52., rGO and composite in figure 13 line no 44. Maintain center alignment or justified alignment for the figure captions as per the journal format, I see its center aligned in some places and justified in others. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your review, your suggestions were very useful and contributed to making our manuscript even better. 

1. Abstract is very precise, more information about the study is needed here and a statement of the novelty of this manuscript is required. It is also encouraged to include the significant result of this work.

The abstract is modified.

2. Typos should be checked such as in subheading 2. Experimental research section, the first line hollow is mentioned as "hol-low".The manuscript was checked again for typos.
3. The conclusion is too vague and looks like another discussion part. It would be better to highlight the most important outcome of the work and its future direction.This section is modified, and only the most important findings of the work were pointed out.
4. The number of references is low; it would be better to include at least 10 more referencesAdditional literature references were analyzed and added.

Sincerely, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I wish you success on your further publishing journey.

Best regards A.P.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated the suggestions and made changes to the manuscript.
I accept the manuscript in its present form.