Influence of Infill on Reinforced Concrete Frame Resting on Slopes under Lateral Loading
and Krishanu Roy 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see the file attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer comments
The authors sincerely thank the editor and Reviewer-1 for the constructive comments. All of the comments have been carefully considered and, wherever appropriate, revisions have been made to the manuscript. Responses to these comments and revisions implemented in the paper are detailed below. The Reviewer comments are in italic black fonts while our replies are in blue(bold). The text changed in the manuscript is highlighted in green.
Reviewer # 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the paper, the effect of the short column and infill on the seismic behaviour of the RCC frame is presented. The topic discussed in this manuscript is interesting, nevertheless, it needs improvements before consideration of possible publication in the buildings Journal.
(Q1) Please correct the punctuation and the English language used in the manuscript.
(A1) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The punctuation and English language is now corrected in the revised manuscript and highlighted in green.
(Q2) The formatting of the text and the images need to be corrected.
(A2) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The text and images are formatted in appropriate places.
(Q3) Page 1 Lines 34-35. It’s not clear what is made economical.
(A3) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The particular sentence is changed and the reason for the economic criteria is included in the revised manuscript.
Due to the nature of the terrain in the hill regions, most buildings now need to be built on a slope to decrease landslides by eliminating the earthwork, as well as to make it more cost-effective by building on the slope without excavating too much soil and fortifying the periphery to stop landslides.
(Q4) Page 6 Line 178. Indicate the extended name of LVDT (Linear Variable Displacement Transducer) because it has never been raised first in the text.
(A4) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The extended name is now included in the revised manuscript.
Q5) It could be interesting to include a comparison between the crack width and gap when there is and when there is not the masonry.
(A5) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The crack width size and gap are included and highlighted to show the comparison between the frame’s behaviour.
When the frame reaches its maximum load, the bare frame exhibits shear fractures at joints that are 6 mm broad and that open out at the support of a short column. When the masonry infill is installed, the scene in the second specimen is completely altered. Despite the fact that shear fractures are not forming close to the joints and supports, the load transmission across the brick masonry has caused cracks and failures that are evident. At the initial load, very thin cracks of 2 mm are seen near the joints of the short column. A crack width of 3 mm is observed near the support of the short column for the infilled frame.
(Q6) Express the numerical change in ductility when reinforcing masonry is present.
(A6) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The main objective of this study is to study the following parameters in the infilled RC frames:
- Ultimate load
- Crack Pattern
- Energy dissipation
- Energy absorption
The study related to ductility and stiffness properties will be taken up by the authors as a future study. Thanks for your understanding.
(Q7) Page 14-15 Lines 328-329. Explain better the analytical relations used to calculate the parameters (Energy Absorption and Dissipation) indicated in Table 2.
(A7) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. Analytical relations used to calculate energy absorption and dissipation are now included in the revised manuscript.
The area beneath the hysteresis loops from the load-versus-deflection diagram was used to compute the energy dissipation throughout various load cycles and the area within the cycles is used for evaluating absorption.
(Q8) Page 15 Lines 338. Insert the constraint type or the contact type that the author of the analytical study used to model in Abaqus CAE the connection between the two materials studied.
(A8) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The contact type used for concrete and reinforcement with mesh is now added in the revised manuscript.
To connect the concrete and reinforcement in the finite element model, the embedded connection was used. At the same time to connect the concrete and mesh, a tie connection was used.
(Q9) Page 17 Line 366. Please indicate the values of the Von Mises Stress with the same graphic scale in order to have a better understanding of the differences between the two cases.
(A9) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The value of Von mises stress is now added in the revised manuscript.
Von mises stress shows that stress intensity is predominant in the bare frame near supports and joints along with the region where the short column effect is there, and the stress is around 4.9MPa. But in the masonry infill frame, stress intensity is very high at 5.44 MPa in the left end long column along with the right bay masonry infill near the short column.
(Q10) The title of the paper is “Influence of infill on RCC frame resting on the slope under lateral loading” but I can’t see any kind of consideration as regards the slope. Explain in what way different slopes of the ground can modify the structural response of the frame.
(A10) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. This paper states the influence of infill on the sloped frame. The work is not carried out for different types of slopes. The authors has done separate work related to the influence of slope on the short column effect (Pradeep, S., and K. Paul Jacob. "Seismic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings with Columns of Different Heights within One Storey." International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR) 4, no. 5 (2014): 37-41.) & (Pradeep, S., and Priyadarshi Kunal. "Analytical Study of Seismic Behaviour of RCC Frame with Short Column Effect." International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology 8, no. 3 (2017): 362-72.). At the same time, if the slope increases height column will decrease that leading to the shortening of the exterior column. From a lateral force point of view, a short column attracts higher lateral forces and leads to sudden shear failure. This concept is called the short-column effect.
(Q11) The following reference could be added to improve the state-of-the-art of the paper regarding infill frames subjected to horizontal forces due to landslides: D. FOTI: “Response of frames seismically protected with passive systems in near-field areas”, International Journal of Structural Engineering, 2014, Volume 5, Issue 4, 1 January 2014, Pages 326-345. DOI: http://www.inderscience.com/info/ingeneral/forthcoming.php?jcode=ijstructe
(A11) We thank reviewer 1 for the valuable comment. The reference is now included to improve the state-of-the-art and is cited in the reference.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present the results of the experimental and analytical investigation of the safety and reliability of the RC Frame with and without the masonry infill under cyclic loads. The various responses such as stiffness, crack pattern, energy dissipation and energy absorption of the RCC structure after the provision of infill in the frame with short column effect were analyzed. The energy dissipation capacity and lateral strength of the RCC structure with short column effect were enhanced by 2.45 times with the inclusion of solid infill. At the conclusion of the article, the authors summarize the results obtained from the experimental and analytical analysis of the behavior of RC frames without and with a masonry wall infill. The presented results are significant informations for designers of buildings with the RC frames filled with masonry walls.
Only one formal error is there - The reference [21] is cited before [20].
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer comments
The authors sincerely thank the editor and Reviewer 2 for their constructive comments. All of the comments have been carefully considered and, wherever appropriate, revisions have been made to the manuscript. Responses to these comments and revisions implemented in the paper are detailed below. The Reviewer comments are in italic black fonts while our replies are in blue(bold). The text changed in the manuscript is highlighted in green.
Reviewer # 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors present the results of the experimental and analytical investigation of the safety and reliability of the RC Frame with and without the masonry infill under cyclic loads. The various responses such as stiffness, crack pattern, energy dissipation, and energy absorption of the RCC structure after the provision of infill in the frame with short column effect were analyzed. The energy dissipation capacity and lateral strength of the RCC structure with short column effect were enhanced by 2.45 times with the inclusion of solid infill. At the conclusion of the article, the authors summarize the results obtained from the experimental and analytical analysis of the behavior of RC frames without and with a masonry wall infill. The presented results are significant information for designers of buildings with RC frames filled with masonry walls.
(Q1) Only one formal error is there - The reference [21] is cited before [20].
(A1) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable comment. The reference citation is now reordered in this revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents a study on the seismic behaviour of RC infilled frames on sloped base. The study is based on a single experimental test and a numerical modelling of the same specimen. The topic is also interesting, but the presentation and the concluding remarks are not satisfying. I recommend to strongly improve the paper, also according to the following comments:
- All the acronyms and abbreviations are not defined. Still, I don't understand why reinforced concrete si abbreviated as RCC.
- State of the art is poor, considering that also other problems should be highlighted regarding to RC infilled frames, e.g., fundamental vibration period, soil structure interaction, limit state failures, intensity measure and engineering demand parameter etc. I suggest to improve this part. Here some suggestions: 10.1080/13632469.2021.1961929; https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.299
- Was the specimen representative of a certain sample of buildings? What are the main limitations of the experimental campaing and of the specimen? How could it be generalized? These aspects must be specified in the paper
-What is the real utility of the tests in Figure 5? this long part seems to be out of topic. It should be reduced
- Regarding to the analytical investigation, I don't see the calibration of the model with the experimental tests. Hence, I suggest to improve this part, in order to match the two aspects.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer comments
The authors sincerely thank the editor and Reviewer 3 for their constructive comments. All of the comments have been carefully considered and, wherever appropriate, revisions have been made to the manuscript. Responses to these comments and revisions implemented in the paper are detailed below. The Reviewer comments are in italic black fonts while our replies are in blue(bold). The text changed in the manuscript is highlighted in green.
Reviewer # 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper presents a study on the seismic behaviour of RC in filled frames on a sloped base. The study is based on a single experimental test and numerical modelling of the same specimen. The topic is also interesting, but the presentation and the concluding remarks are not satisfying. I recommend to strongly improving the paper, also according to the following comments:
(Q1) All the acronyms and abbreviations are not defined. Still, I don't understand why reinforced concrete is abbreviated as RCC.
(A1) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable comment. All the acronyms and abbreviations throughout the journals are defined and highlighted in green. RCC is replaced with Reinforced concrete in the journal as mentioned in the comments.
(Q2) State of the art is poor, considering that also other problems should be highlighted regarding to RC in filled frames, e.g., fundamental vibration period, soil structure interaction, limit state failures, intensity measure and engineering demand parameter etc. I suggest to improve this part. Here some suggestions:10.1080/13632469.2021.1961929; https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.299
(A2) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable comment. The reference is now included to improve the state-of-the-art and is cited in the reference.
(Q3) Was the specimen representative of a certain sample of buildings? What are the main limitations of the experimental campaign and of the specimen? How could it be generalized? These aspects must be specified in the paper
(A3) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable comment. The specimen is not representing any building. The experiments were carried out on a one-sixth scale of a two-bay and two-storey reinforced concrete frame. Only the foundation slope is provided at a slope of 9° as per the measurements taken from satellite views of google earth pro for SRM University, Sikkim Campus, India. Where the slope is measured for the range of distance 50 m with a minimum elevation of 1173 m to a maximum elevation of 1181 m as shown in Figure 1(a) in the revised manuscript. The aspect considered for dimensions is included and highlighted.
The foundation slope is provided at a slope of 9° as per the measurements taken from satellite views of google earth pro for SRM University, Sikkim Campus, India. Where the slope is measured for the range of distance 50 m with a minimum elevation of 1173 m to a maximum elevation of 1181 m as shown in Figure 1(a). The RC foundation is provided with a length of 1300 mm and a depth was 200mm. Total depth varies from one end of 300mm to 500mm at another end as shown in Figure 1(c).
(Q4) What is the real utility of the tests in Figure 5? This long part seems to be out of topic. It should be reduced.
(A4) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable comment. The main objective of the work is to investigate the influence of infill on a frame resting on a slope. Here the infill used is brick masonry. Under lateral force, brick masonry plays a major role in resisting lateral force with its bond strength. Hence using high-strength concrete improves the bond strength of masonry.
(Q5) Regarding the analytical investigation, I don't see the calibration of the model with the experimental tests. Hence, I suggest improving this part, in order to match the two aspects.
(A5) We thank reviewer 2 for the valuable suggestion. The analytical study phase now included the calibration of the model with experimental inquiry, and the bar chart and comparison table are both present and emphasized as mentioned in the comments to improve the analytical part.
Table.3. Experimental and Analytical data for frames
|
Frame |
Experimental |
Analytical |
||
|
Load (kN) |
Displacement (mm) |
Load (kN) |
Displacement (mm) |
|
|
Bare Frame |
27.9 |
37 |
26 |
30 |
|
Infill Frame |
60 |
13.1 |
57 |
14.5 |
Figure.14. Comparison of Analytical and Experimental Data
There is a comparison of the analytical and experimental results in Figure.14 and Table.3. It has been noted that there has been little difference between them. The discrepancy between the experimental inquiry and the analytical investigation in the bare frame is 1.9 kN. Furthermore, the displacement is the same for both the bare and Infill frame investigations. The finite element model replicates the fracture pattern found in the experimental study of the bare frame near support and joints in the same location as high-intensity stress deformation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication
