Impact of Jet Fires on Steel Structures: Application of Passive Fire Protection Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fire testing at such scale is valuable. I would recommend to publish this work with some revisions.

1. Fig 1, hydrocarbon curve, do you mean hydrocarbon pool fire curve? This is not clear in the figures.

2. Fig 5, the figures on the left and middle are too small. They can hardly been read at this resolution/size. 

3. Fig 9 and 12 only show average temperatures as a function of time. I suggest the authors include all temperature readings from the thermocouple as a function of time. Temperature distribution should be different. Simply show the average temperature will lose some valuable information.

4. Were samples 6 and 7 also tested in this work or the results were cited from the references? If it is from the refs, these are not your samples. 

5. Were heat fluxes measured in these testing?

6. Were any failure models built based on the temperature curves and mechanical strength losses?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

OK

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the answer for you is posted in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is valuable and necessary for the field; however, the following comments should be addressed before acceptance:

1. Translate or remove all non-English text to ensure the manuscript is fully understandable.

2. Provide clarification for the statement on page 2, lines 49-52: "The requirements of regulations of ....".

3. Remove the unnecessary space on page 2, line 65, before "The...".

4. Clarify the statement on page 3, lines 82-83: "the temperature ....".

5. Ensure consistency in using either "Figure" or "Fig." throughout the manuscript.

6. On page 5, line 194, explain the rationale for selecting the specific time and temperature limits.

7. Apply a consistent style to all figures and their captions.
8- Review and edit the references list to ensure the consistency. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Conduct thorough proofreading to improve the overall quality and readability of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the answer for you is posted in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the topic is of interest, there are some important issues should be addressed before the work can be recommended for publication here.

1) The work novelty is not well discussed; please address this over the last paragraph of Section 1.

2) The jet fire simulation is not explained though it is the most important step of the work; please use the following studies done by Dehkordi et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104907), and Kashi and Bahoosh (https://doi.org/10.1007/s43153-019-00003-y). 

3) The effect of jet fire on the structural response of steel structures should be explained in septs; what is the differences between the application of a jet fire and a pool fire on steel materials, ...

4) The results are not sufficient; try to present a design/investigation pattern so that the results can be generalized for future studies. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the answer for you is posted in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have now addressed all of my comments on the wok. It can be recommended for publication here.