Fragility Analysis of Transmission Towers Subjected to Downburst Winds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study proposes a fragility assessment method for transmission towers under the action of downburst, considering the uncertainty of resistance and the randomness of wind load effect. The Holmes horizontal radial wind profile empirical model and Vicroy vertical wind profile model are used to simulate the average wind, and the Kaimal spectrum is non-uniformly modulated to simulate the fluctuating wind. Results of this manuscript are very useful for the interested reader of the current engineering journal. Applying the following comments and suggestions will improve the current version of the manuscript.

1)     Abstract is lengthy and not clear. Information in the abstract is presented in an illogical manner. A revision is recommended.

2)     Introduction section needs a serious revision. Literature review lacks critical discussion of the previous studies. It is recommended to extend the literature review by adding more recent studies.

3)     It is recommended to briefly explain some of the terminologies before in discussing them.   

4)     Authors should avoid compounding of references.

5)     Motivation of the current study in terms of the shortcoming in the literature is missing.

6)     Authors should explicitly emphasize on the novelty points and specific contributions of this research work.

7)     How accurate was the assumption used in the modeling of time varying mean speed equation (2)?

8)     The applicability of the empirical presented in equation (3) under the current conditions is not discussed at all.

9)     What was the effect of radial distance on the time modulation function?

10) It is recommended to briefly discussed the modeling and accuracy of wind fluctuations.

11) What is the source of data presented in Table 1? It is not clear from the corresponding text in the manuscript.

12) Quality of Figure 4 is poor.

13) Validation of the models used in the analysis is missing.

14) What was the accuracy of results? It is recommended to added percent error along with the results.

15) There are several typographical errors in the manuscript. A thorough revision of the entire manuscript in this regard in highly recommended.

Moderate editing of English language is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study examines the impact of downbursts, a form of high-intensity localized wind, on transmission towers, aiming to assess their safety under such conditions. Fragility curves, which take into account the uncertainty of resistance and wind load effects, are employed to assess the vulnerability of transmission towers under both downburst and atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) conditions.

Generally, the paper presents a relevant topic and general interest to the readers of the journal. However, the following comments should be considered to improve the quality of the paper.

 

1. Please, include a concise summary of the findings in the Abstract.
2. The literature review would benefit from references to similar studies already present in the literature, such as https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001311 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109241.
3. It is unclear how fragility curves were developed using only 20 samples. Typically, a larger number of models are used to construct fragility curves at various damage limit states.
4. The discussion of the results seems quite brief, and different damage limit states are not considered. Fragility curves should be generated for varying damage limit states, such as buckling and yielding. Moreover, system fragility should be derived from the individual component fragility curves.
5. The results depicted in Figure 13 don't appear to represent realistic fragility curves. Why there is such significant variation in the fragility curves at different angles?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript has been significantly improved. I would like to recommend it for publication in its current form. 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The major concerns highlighted by this reviewer have not been adequately addressed in the paper. Additionally, it does not incorporate an array of limit states that are typically crucial in fragility analysis. The paper also seems to focus on a narrow scope of cases, and there is a lack of comprehensive discussion on the results. Given these factors and the insufficient novelty of the study, I believe that the paper can not be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The primary issues raised by this reviewer remain unresolved in the manuscript. The paper also focused on a narrow scope of cases, and there is a lack of comprehensive discussion on the results. Given these factors and the insufficient novelty of the study, I believe that the paper can not be accepted in its current form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx