Axial Compression Behavior of Steel Angle-Corrugated Steel Plate-Confined Concrete Columns

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments were taken care

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

1.    Some grammar and language mistakes.

 

2.     I still need you to add a comment for the same note in my first comments” In Figure 2, you are using angle with its legs out of the section. This position is not preferred, as these legs will suffer lateral buckling very quickly. You should invert this position and weld the legs direct to the corrugated sheets.” You should comment in detail on why you used this position.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Titles for the figure are not uniform. Use either Figure/Fig. based on the journal template.

2.       The numbering of equations are not uniform

3.       “As the stress of core concrete was unable to directly measure, the compressive strength of core concrete was determined by the separation analysis, which was a numerical analysis method.” Elaborate the methodology.

4.       Why this profile (Angles projecting outward rather than inward - Figure 2) has been chosen? Any significance?

5.       The significance of choosing C3D8 element for meshing in FE model needs justification.

6.       In the discussion of experimental method, it is stated that corrugated plate doesn’t carry any axial load but, in the FE results, buckling stress is visible on corrugated plates also. Justify.

7.       The abbreviation for mega pascal should be “MPa” and not “Mpa” (Table 2)

8.       Table 3 mentioned the specific parameters from SA-CS 1 to SA-CS 23 with same breadth value and no explanation is provided for this.

9.       Among the parameters provided in Table 3, SA-CS 5 has a huge variation. Justify.

10.    “Overall, the results show that the existing codes couldn’t calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of SA-CS column accurately. The codes always underrate or overrate the experimental and numerical results.” If so, the outcome of this work can be taken to the codal standards?

Author Response

Please see the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

TITLE:

 

 Compression behavior of steel angle-corrugated steel plate confined concrete composite columns

                                                                                                                                                             

 

 

Comments to the authors

1.    The title of the paper should be changed to: “Axial Compression behavior of steel angle-corrugated steel plate concrete composite columns”.

 

2.    Language and usage errors. For example :

-       In the abstract and generally, check “ between SA-CS column and concrete filled steel tube (CFST) column :: it should be columns????

-        mechanical properties of SA-CS column were better than those of CFST column,”: you should add “the” before column.

-       In the introduction section : change to “ plenty of research”

-       In the introduction section : change “ But compared with circular CFST columns, “ to “ When compared with circular CFST columns, “

-        In the introduction section : “The external steel tube of square CFST column is easy to occur local buckling because of its small out-of-plane stiffness under axial compression, which would lead to reduce its bearing capacity” change to “The external steel tube of square CFST column can suffer  local buckling because of its low out-of-plane stiffness under axial compression, which would lead to reduce its bearing capacity”

-       Put the reference number after all the names not the first name” Wang[13] et al.

-       In the introduction section : “which is cold-formed by steel plate,” to” which is cold-formed  steel plate”

-       Change à Refer to the literature of Wang[20], to Refer to the paper of Wang[20],.

 

You should recheck all the paper language clearly and you may need a language expert to rephrase and check it.

 

3.         In Figure 2, you are using an angle with its legs out of the section. This position is not preferred as these legs will suffer lateral buckling very quickly. You should invert this position and weld the legs direct to the corrugated sheets.

 

4.         You should mention clearly the significance and the objectives of your paper.

5.         All the material properties should be put in a table.

6.         Comment on Figure 7, why the vertical direction of the steel plate did not yield in the last case.

7.         In Equation 5, mention how you calculated the vertical stress of the steel angle, and comment on the buckling cases.

8.         Comment on the results you obtained from Figure 8. You should relate the size of the angles to the section size.

9.         You should recommend in detail on the results of Figure 9 and Figure 10.

10.     In page 8, the value of the friction coefficient (0.60) should be justified. I think you have to add references for this value.

11.     You should add a verification study on independent experimental and analytical done by others to compare your results with their output.

12.     I doubt the stability of your model results after buckling of angles. You should provide the load stage where buckling occurred and show the results after this point.

13.     In Equations 15 and 16, where is the steel resistance and how did you calculate the confinement index.

14.     You should comment on the difference between design equations and give reasons for this.

15.     Conclusions are very shallow and should be rewritten in detail.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx