Fragility Analysis of Wind-Induced Collapse of a Transmission Tower Considering Corrosion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is an interesting article describing ‘Uncertainty analysis of wind-induced collapse of a transmission tower considering corrosion’. The manuscript is well organized, and results are well supported. However, the following is suggested to improve the quality of the paper.
1. Abstract - provide some numerical values as properties. It looks general.
2. The introduction part includes a short story until it comes to the main objective of this paper. I think it should be written with more details to make it clear and exact.
3. Also, in the ‘Introduction’ the reason why authors are dealing with the subject and what kind of scientific problem they are going to solve are not given.
4. The results and discussion of the paper is good.
5. Conclusions - Important new results and knowledge along with their potential use should be listed. Being as quantitative as possible. Do not just summarize what work was conducted in the manuscript.
6. A few references need to be updated with some recent papers published in the last years.
7. The manuscript is overall well-written. However, there are many typesetting and grammatical errors in the text that should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for
buildings-1923340
Uncertainty analysis of wind-induced collapse of a transmission tower considering corrosion
This work is meaningful and interesting. The corrosion problem has been overlooked in many places. The authors built a connection between wind speed, the atmospheric environment, and the corrosion of transmission tower materials. I think, nonetheless, that the manuscript could be improved if the authors could address the comments and recommendations I listed below.
The title of your article is awkward.
In your Intro part, you listed many other researchers' work. However, I did not find the logistic connection among them, and how those works affect/contribute to the current progress in the structural design. Additionally, you should add some of your own thoughts/discussions about those works.
The introduction section should be improved; superiority, novelty, and critical improvement in this study must be clarified.
Usually, what types of steel are applied in transmission towers? Additionally, will the steel have any coating on it?
Line 122. You should mention the version of the software that you applied in your research.
Line 251. Give a citation about the equation you applied in your research.
The conclusion section seems to rush to the end. The authors will have to demonstrate the impact and insights of the research. The authors need to clearly provide several solid future research directions. Clearly state your unique research contributions in the conclusion section. Add limitations of the study.
Scientific soundness :
. The subject addressed in this paper is relevant.
Interest to the readers :
. In my opinion, the method of this paper seems to be interesting for the readership of the journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors investigated the structural performance of transmission tower as a function of corrosion and wind speed. A method is proposed to evaluate the wind performance of a transmission tower by considering the effect of corrosion. A neural network model that predicts the corrosion depth of different parts of a transmission tower was developed. Corrosion was found to have a negative impact on the wind resistance so that the maximum wind speed that the transmission tower can withstand was reduced due to corrosion. The research has novelty since it combines the effects of chemical and mechanical processes on the structural performance. Following minor improvements are recommended.
· Line 23 – 24: “With increasing corrosion of tower members, the ductility of the structure reduces obviously.” This last sentence of the Abstract should be rewritten.
· Lines 156 – 157:” the sample size in this study was determined to be 20”. Can the authors justify this sample size? Perhaps, references to some other studies in the field that used similar sample sizes could be appropriate.
· Lines 126 – 127: “A bilinear isotropic hardening plasticity model was used to simulate the constitutive model of the steel material.” It is advisable to give the details of this plasticity model either with a drawing or simply by mentioning the corresponding stress-strain values.
· A number of computational techniques are being mentioned throughout the text such as:
o Harmonic superposition method (used for the simulation of the fluctuating wind speed). (Line 174)
o Latin hypercube sampling and Monte Carlo sampling methods. (Line 158)
o Stripe analysis (Line 189)
o Control variable method (Line 192)
Some theoretical background on these techniques should be given.
· Lines 219 – 222: The following sentence needs to be clarified or rewritten: “The parameter with the least effect on the collapsed wind speed was the yield strength of Q235 steel, which was due to the failure mode of the transmission tower, was the buckling of the main leg member, and the diagonal members were relatively safe.”
· Lines 404 – 405: “Based on the predicted corrosion rate, the corresponding variation law of the corrosion depth was obtained using integration. “ This sentence needs to be clarified. Particularly, how integration is used should be explained.
· Limitations of the current study and future research directions could be mentioned in Section 5. Conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript presents a comprehensive study of transmission tower considering corrosion. Overall it is well written with some interesting results. But the following aspects need to be further clarified.
1. What is "the variation law of the wind-resistant ultimate bearing capacity of transmission towers during their operation"? Please clarify it.
2. The uncertainty in material and geometric parameters for newly designed transmission tower seems to be very small, compared to corroded ones and the uncertainty in the wind loads. Please comment on the authors' perspective and their consideration in this study.
3. 20 samples for uncertainty analysis using LHS sampling is quite limited. Please show that it is sufficient to what levels and for what percentiles.
4. How is nonlinear buckling analysis is done in this work? More details are needed. Did authors analyze the transmission tower or transmission tower system? If only the transmission tower is considered, how is the boundary considered to account for the cables.
5. How are the uncertainties in the wind load considered?
6. How are the corrosion statistics considered?
7. How are the corrosion taken into account in the FE model? Uniform corrosion or pitting corrosion? Please justify.
8. Corrosion data used need to be detailed, and supplementary data files are recommended to be added for the revised submission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
