Finite Element Analysis-Based Blast Performance Evaluation for Reinforced Concrete Columns with Shear and Flexure Failure Modes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is devoted to evaluate the blast performance of non-ductile and ductile RC columns using ductility and residual capacity-based performance limits. The article contains quite important and original results which have been well explained and described by the authors.
The subject of the paper seems to be interested for the readers of Sustainability and can be published after small corrections.
I suggest enrich a little the introduction about adding more literature positions. I suggest also describing the boundary conditions of numerical model.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Journal: Sustainability
Title: Finite Element Analysis based Blast Performance Evaluation for Reinforced Concrete Columns with Shear and Flexure Failure Modes
This paper presents an important investigation into the blast performance of non-ductile (shear-governed) and ductile (flexure-governed) reinforced concrete (RC) columns, focusing on their response to blast loads and evaluating their performance against ductility- and residual capacity-based performance limits. To enhance the quality of the report, further details, statistical analysis, and discussion should be incorporated, ensuring that the research is clear and accessible to a wide audience. So, it needs minor modification to make it publishable as a scientific research journal. Relevant previous studies on blast and impact behaviour on RC elements should be include and discussed in the introduction. The following are the key comments and suggestions for the paper:
1. Clarity of Objectives and Significance:
· The paper clearly articulates its objectives and significance, highlighting the critical issue of blast damage to non-ductile RC columns. It effectively sets the context for the research by emphasizing the difference in shear capacity between seismically-deficient and code-compliant structures.
· Several coefficients in the formula require clear definitions.
2. Methodology and Validation:
· The use of finite element analysis and the validation of column models against experimental results are commendable. However, it would be beneficial to provide more details about the validation process, including the specific experimental data used, the criteria for validation, and any discrepancies encountered during the validation.
3. Blast Modeling:
· The implementation of an efficient blast modeling method is a crucial aspect of this research. The paper briefly mentions this method but lacks sufficient details regarding its development and the underlying assumptions. Providing more information on the modeling approach would enhance the paper's credibility.
4. Results and Discussion:
· The paper effectively communicates the differences in performance between shear-governed and flexure-governed RC columns. However, the discussion could benefit from a more in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to these differences. Exploring the influence of material properties, column geometry, and boundary conditions on blast response could provide valuable insights.
5. Performance Limits Comparison:
· The observation that the residual capacity-based performance level of shear-governed columns is underestimated compared to ductility-based limits is intriguing. To strengthen this argument, the paper should elaborate on why this discrepancy occurs and discuss the potential implications for design codes and practices.
6. Conclusion and Implications:
· The conclusion should summarize the key findings concisely and discuss their practical implications for blast-resistant design. Additionally, the paper could suggest potential revisions or improvements to current design codes based on the research results.
7. References and Citations:
· The number of referenced papers in the current manuscript is limited; it would be advisable to include a minimum of 25 references to meet the standards typically expected for publication in a scientific journal. Please consider adding more references to enhance the paper's credibility and depth of research. The referencing style in the manuscript lacks consistency. Please ensure uniformity by either consistently using the full names of all journal titles or employing consistent abbreviations throughout the reference paper. Previous study for Blast Impact behaviour of Reinforced Concrete elements should be included and discussed in the introduction. i.e. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110518
· Ensure that the paper includes a comprehensive list of references, particularly those related to blast analysis and RC column behavior. Properly cite and attribute previous work in the field. Refer and cite the following key papers focus on fracture mechanics e.g. Garcia et al. (concrete with shear failure modes) that that helps to improve the quality of the papers.
1. Wei, J., Li, J., & Wu, C. (2019). An experimental and numerical study of reinforced conventional concrete and ultra-high performance concrete columns under lateral impact loads. Engineering Structures, 201, 109822.
2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2023.107181
In summary, this paper addresses an important issue related to blast performance in RC columns. To enhance its quality and impact, the paper should provide more detailed information on the validation and blast modeling methods, elaborate on the factors influencing column performance, and discuss the broader implications of the findings.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the paragraph for you with some corrections and suggestions:
I have thoroughly reviewed this paper. It is undeniably interesting and has captured my attention. However, there are several questions that need to be addressed. My comments are listed below:
1. Please consider having this paper undergo extensive English proofreading, as the poor quality of the English language usage makes it challenging to follow.
2. This paper contains an excessive amount of redundant information, resulting in unnecessary length. I recommend that the authors consider condensing the content.
3. In Table 4, the error (initial stiffness) between the experimental and simulation results is less than 1%. In my experience, this result seems too good to be true. Could you provide any source data from the simulations to support it?
4. In Figure 12 (a), why is the result for the mid-distance so similar to that of the long distance? Could you please provide more elaboration on this?
5. In Figures 12 (a) and (b), the behavior of the results for short distances seems to be notably different. Can you provide an explanation for this discrepancy?
1. In Figure 13, the force for the short distance is lower than that for the mid and long distances. This contradicts intuition, as when close to the blast, the order of force amplitude should typically be short distance, mid-distance, and then long distance. However, your results show that the mid and long distance results are nearly identical, while the short distance result is lower than the other two.
2. The reference in this paper is not enough. Please consider citing the following references:
Wu, Jun, et al. "Numerical simulation of reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading and the structural damage assessment." Engineering Failure Analysis 118 (2020): 104926.
Tang, Qixiang, et al. "Surface rust detection using ultrasonic waves in a cylindrical geometry by finite element simulation." Infrastructures 3.3 (2018): 29.
Choi, Ji-Hun, et al. "Evaluation of blast resistance and failure behavior of prestressed concrete under blast loading." Construction and Building Materials 173 (2018): 550-572.
Overall, the paper has potential, but addressing these concerns would significantly enhance its quality and clarity.
I have reviewed the paragraph for you with some corrections and suggestions:
I have thoroughly reviewed this paper. It is undeniably interesting and has captured my attention. However, there are several questions that need to be addressed. My comments are listed below:
1. Please consider having this paper undergo extensive English proofreading, as the poor quality of the English language usage makes it challenging to follow.
2. This paper contains an excessive amount of redundant information, resulting in unnecessary length. I recommend that the authors consider condensing the content.
3. In Table 4, the error (initial stiffness) between the experimental and simulation results is less than 1%. In my experience, this result seems too good to be true. Could you provide any source data from the simulations to support it?
4. In Figure 12 (a), why is the result for the mid-distance so similar to that of the long distance? Could you please provide more elaboration on this?
5. In Figures 12 (a) and (b), the behavior of the results for short distances seems to be notably different. Can you provide an explanation for this discrepancy?
1. In Figure 13, the force for the short distance is lower than that for the mid and long distances. This contradicts intuition, as when close to the blast, the order of force amplitude should typically be short distance, mid-distance, and then long distance. However, your results show that the mid and long distance results are nearly identical, while the short distance result is lower than the other two.
2. The reference in this paper is not enough. Please consider citing the following references:
Wu, Jun, et al. "Numerical simulation of reinforced concrete slab subjected to blast loading and the structural damage assessment." Engineering Failure Analysis 118 (2020): 104926.
Tang, Qixiang, et al. "Surface rust detection using ultrasonic waves in a cylindrical geometry by finite element simulation." Infrastructures 3.3 (2018): 29.
Choi, Ji-Hun, et al. "Evaluation of blast resistance and failure behavior of prestressed concrete under blast loading." Construction and Building Materials 173 (2018): 550-572.
Overall, the paper has potential, but addressing these concerns would significantly enhance its quality and clarity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, the mentioned work is highly interesting from an experimental perspective and in terms of the practical assumptions applied. The experimental methodology and test design, along with the numerical models and results, exhibit a high degree of coherence, as do the conclusions that have been drawn. I fully grasp the experimental concept of the research work at hand, but I believe that the references cited in the text are quite limited in quantity and "lack interdisciplinarity." This aspect should be addressed to achieve a better alignment with the academic perspective.
Warm regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments, and it is now ready for publication.
The author has revised the paper based on the reviewers' comments, and it is now ready for publication.
