Optimal Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Prestressed Concrete Beams by Applying Residual Plastic Deformation Limitations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

The manuscript entitled “Optimal Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Pre-Stressed Concrete Beams Applying Residual Plastic Deformation Limitations” has many grammatical issues that need to be corrected. The authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly. I suggest the following changes and improvements:

1.     Generally, there is a sentence at the start of the abstract, which highlights the research problem or background of the study.

2.     Authors need to revise the abstract section considering the important findings and underscore the scientific value added to your paper in your abstract.

3.     The current structure of the introduction is not well organized and long. Additionally, The authors need to be improved the last part of the introduction considering the main theme/objectives and findings of the study.

4.     The novelty of this work should be stated clearly in the introduction section.

5.     if applied in V at any…….change if to If.

6.     All figure legends should provide enough information.

7.     This stydy might be reflected as a suitable benchmark for measuring the plastic performance……. Need rephrasing and eliminate the grammatical/spelling error.

8.     Conclusion is a fundamental recap of whole data sets. Authors need to revise and improve based on key findings with clearer summarized information and research significance.

9.     All the references should be checked as per the Journal format. Additionally, the numbers of references need to be extended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review results for Sustainability-2263709

In this paper, the respected authors have investigated the optimal elasto-plastic analysis of pre-stressed reinforced concrete beams under different pre-stressing conditions. To reach this aim, the authors have linked the non-linear elasto-plastic optimization program to models simulated by ABAQUS. Although the subject of this paper is interesting and it has some novelty, the reviewer believes that it is not suitable for publication at the present format. Neither finite element simulations nor optimization program are validated through comparison with benchmark solutions. In the other words, there is no argument or numerical example in the paper that can prove the accuracy of the obtained results. Other comments are given below:

Comments:

1) Please explain clearly at the end of section 1 that what is the novelty and main contribution of the paper.

2) The English of paper should be improved. Some parts of paper need more than twice reading to be understood. Please use short and simple sentences instead of consecutive sentences.

3) The formulations given in section 2 do not have any reference. Moreover, formulation part is typed untidy and sloppy.

4) In Fig. 4 and 11, please specify that you are showing the DamageT or principal strains.

5) The quality of Fig. 5 and 12 should be improved. The texts and typed numbers are small and should be retyped with a bigger font size.

6) In Tables 1-3, it is not clear that the legend of contours is related to stress in steel rebars or the DamageT parameter.

7) The material parameters used for modeling the concrete material in ABAQUS should be stated in the manuscript.

8) The literature review and references should be improved by adding recent works related to elasto-plastic analysis of concrete beams. Some examples:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.358, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2023.85.4.485, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.26.3.347

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer thanks the authors for their contribution. The contents of the article are interesting and useful information. Nevertheless, the article is NOT well formulated and organized and, in the reviewer’s opinion, the goal of the work must be better explained within Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions. Moreover, the publication in the “Sustainability, MDPI” is not recommended unless the following suggestions are taken into account:

1) Introduction. The current state of knowledge relating to the article topic has not been covered and clearly presented, and the authors’ contributions and findings are not emphasized. In this regard, the authors should make their effort to address these issues.

2) Introduction. In the literature, nonlinear elastic behavior of concrete bridge girders has rigorously been studied through dynamic laboratory tests and analytical simulations on several prestressed specimens having different shapes and geometries of tendons. Please refer to these issues through the following references:

-  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2019.04.038

-  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.11.047

3) Objectives and findings should be presented more clearly (e.g., using the following division of the sections: Introduction, Theoretical Model, Finite Element Model, Comparison between Theoretical and Finite Element Simulations, Discussion, Conclusions). The current main sections appear NOT very well organized and divided. Please, review the corresponding parts.

4) Please, cite the finite element (FE) software ABAQUS in the references.

5) The FE analyses performed by ABAQUS must be better explained with, particularly, details of the models used. It is not clear how the models of the prestressed concrete beams are composed (beam elements, plate and shell, etc., with the corresponding amounts and mesh sizes) and how the external loading were applied. Which are the geometric characteristics of such beams ? Which are their boundary conditions ? Moreover, have geometric nonlinear analyses been performed ? How much are the values of the tension forces applied along the cables ? Please, revise these parts and provide more information about the models.

6) Please, insert a table which lists the types of FE used, with the corresponding amounts within the models and mesh sizes.

7) Please, substitute the term “mid-span” with “midspan”.

8) Please, substitute the term “pre-stressed force” with “prestressed force”.

9) The further work should also be mentioned at the end of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest the following minor changes.

1.     The author should add a sentence about the research background at the start of the abstract which highlights the problem and research work's significance.

2.     The novelty of this work should be stated clearly in the introduction section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have considered most of reviewer's comments in the preparation of the revised version of manuscript. It is recommended for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors carried out the required revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx