A Novel Rectangular-Section Combined Beam of Welded Thin-Walled H-Shape Steel/Camphor Pine Wood: The Bending Performance Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In order to be able to confidently assert the advantage of composite beams over massive ones, the authors should give the values of the mass of one running meter. In addition, usually when using glue, the question arises of maintaining its strength for a long time with climatic temperature oscillations.

Figures 9 and 10 must be corrected, because an information about L-M samples is not visible.

Authors should indicate a conlusion (1).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted manuscript on “A novel rectangular-section combined beam of welded thin-walled H-shape steel/camphor pine wood: the bending performance study” is a meaningful paper that describes the composite behavior of H-shape steel and wood. However, for the convenience of readers and to improve the quality of the thesis, it seems that the following major revisions are needed.

(1) The number of the references indicated in the paper does not match the number of the documents shown in References from Borri et al. [9]. Please correct it.

(2) The part specified as 3. The results of the effective factors should be modified as 4. The results of the effective factors, and the numbering of subsections and subsequent chapters should also be modified.

(3) In Fig 9 and Fig 10, it is difficult to identify the load-deflection relationship of the L-M specimen, so visibility needs to be improved.

(4) It is necessary to organize the details of the experimental results and analysis results in tables as well as text.

(5) Line 417 describes the modulus of elasticity as 2.03 × 105 MPa, but it seems that the unit is wrong, and GPa is judged to be correct.

(6) Among those described in 5.1.6 Boundary conditions and loads, it is stated that the force applied to the two upper steel pads is evenly distributed over the entire pad, but the conditions in the actual experiment are applied to the center line of the two upper steel pads, so is considered to be corrected.

(7) Fig. 20 has poor visibility and needs to be corrected.

(8) In Fig. 25, it seems that the rotation of the lower steel pads of the finite element analysis model is constrained, but in Fig. 19, the rotation condition is not constrained in the actual experimental condition. This means that there is an error in the boundary condition of the analysis model, so it is judged that the modeling needs to be corrected.

(9) The analog value and trial value described in Fig. 26 need to be modified to test value and analysis value to help the reader's understanding. In addition, comparison of the test and analysis results of L-Z-2 to L-Z-5 shows a big difference in maximum strength and deformation capacity. This is compared to the experimental results showing the final failure due to brittle fracture of wood in the experiment, and the analysis model is judged to lack the effect of brittle fracture of wood, so it seems that the analysis model needs to be modified.

(10) For the same reason, the brittle wood, which is the cause of the final destruction, remains in the analysis of the effect of yield strength, flange thickness, and web thickness, but the ductile capacity is improved only by the change of H-steel, so it seems necessary to correct this.and need review.

(11) It was finally destroyed by the brittle effect of wood, but if there was a comparison group with only steel materials excluding wood, it would be much more stable and show excellent deformability due to the ductile behavior of steel materials. This is considered to be inconsistent with the purpose of this paper that the synthesis of wood and steel will show excellent performance, so it is necessary to supplement this explanation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The conducted work “A novel rectangular-section combined beam of welded thin-walled H-shape steel/camphor pine wood: the bending performance study” is good. However, following comments should be addressed to further improve the paper:

A. GENERAL COMMENTS ON PAPER

1.      Explicitly mention the novelty and research significance of current work in last paragraph of introduction section with emphasis on scientific soundness. Also, it would be great to add recent relevant literature review from 2023 papers in introduction section as there is no paper cited from 2023.

2.      Avoid paragraph of few (1-4) sentences throughout the manuscript, particularly in results and discussions sections e.g. lines 123-130, etc.

3.      Section number mentioned at line 301 should be 4, instead of 3. Similarly, its sub-heading numbering and other sections numbering should be updated.

4.      Figures 15 to 18 can be shown in one figure as a to d. Similar types of figures should be presented in one figure as a, b, c, d instead of using more figure numbers.

5.      There are too many figures. Only very important figures may be retained in main text body. And important figure may be shown in annexure.

6.      Results are very briefly explained/elaborated in a descriptive way, thus results in current form look like a project report. Results should be further elaborated with scientific reasoning.

7.      A separate brief section (explaining the relevance of this research for practical implementation) may be added before conclusion section.  

8.      Conclusions are little long; these should be to the point as obtained from results with scientific soundness. Closing remarks should be added at the end of conclusion section keeping in mind all conclusive bullet points.

9.      English Language should be improved throughout the manuscript.

B. SPECIFIC COMMENTS FOR IMPROVING FOCUSSED RESEARCH

1.      Please add labelled test set up.

2.      It would be great to correlate the cracks observed in physical testing with numerical outcome.

3.      The reflection of quantitative outcome should be there in conclusions. In current form, the conclusions look like qualitative.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept the publication because the answer and correction to the review is judged to be sufficient.

Author Response

There is no specific revision of the paper according to the revised comment for the second time.Thank the expert for the approval of the revised manuscript.