Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower-Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads Using ABAQUS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The article develops a finite element model of a power transmission line tower and studies its strength under wind load and high temperature conditions that occur during fires. The influence of wind load, temperature, and tower parameters (tower height, horizontal spacing, elevation) on strength is studied. The article is relevant and has important practical significance. However, there are some comments to the article that need to be taken into account.

 

Research methodology comments:

1. The finite element model is not described clearly enough. In particular, it is not entirely clear what problem is being solved? Quasi-static with equivalent loading or dynamic? If dynamic, then its type and parameters are not described. Is the force of gravity taken into account? A modal analysis has been performed, but its results are in no way connected to the subsequent main analysis. Are there periodic loads in the history that can cause resonance phenomena? Are these loads modeled in the main analysis?

2. I recommend analyzing several papers on methods of protecting structures from fire.

3. In order to adhere to the principles of open science, I recommend submitting the Abaqus model as an appendix to the article. This way it can develop.

4. Conclusion 1 is trivial. I recommend adding suggestions for increasing strength.

 

Other comments:

5. References [...] should not be superscript.

6. Fix Table 2.

7. Remove hieroglyphs in figures 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20. Add equivalent stress units.

8. Fix commas in line 208 and tables 5, 7.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The article develops a finite element model of a power transmission line tower and studies its strength under wind load and high temperature conditions that occur during fires. The influence of wind load, temperature, and tower parameters (tower height, horizontal spacing, elevation) on strength is studied. The article is relevant and has important practical significance. However, there are some comments to the article that need to be taken into account.

Research methodology comments:

1. The finite element model is not described clearly enough. In particular, it is not entirely clear what problem is being solved? Quasi-static with equivalent loading or dynamic? If dynamic, then its type and parameters are not described. Is the force of gravity taken into account? A modal analysis has been performed, but its results are in no way connected to the subsequent main analysis. Are there periodic loads in the history that can cause resonance phenomena? Are these loads modeled in the main analysis?

（1）Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed review and valuable feedback. I sincerely apologize for not clearly articulating the core problem being addressed in the original manuscript. Your insightful comment has helped me realize this gap, and I have since revised the abstract and introduction to better clarify the focus and objectives of the study.

Specifically, The paper investigates the impact of high temperatures on the bearing capacity of transmission tower-line systems under wind load, and explores the effects of uneven horizontal spacing distribution and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the bearing capacity of the tower-line system. We have included this clarification in both the abstract and introduction sections.

Once again, I greatly appreciate your constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity of the research problem and enhancing the overall quality of the paper.

（2）Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your meticulous review and valuable feedback. Regarding your question about the type of wind load applied, the wind load in this study is applied using a quasi-static analysis with equivalent loading. We have also taken gravity into account and have not included any periodic loads that could potentially cause resonance phenomena. To provide a more comprehensive and clear description of the load application in the finite element model, we have revised the manuscript and added a new section, "3.2 Load Application," which details the specific method used for applying the wind load.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful review and guidance. Your comments have been instrumental in improving the quality of our paper.

（3）Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable feedback. I sincerely apologize for the lack of direct connection between the modal analysis and the subsequent main analysis, as you rightly pointed out.

We regret the oversight and apologize for any confusion caused. To better understand the dynamic characteristics of the transmission tower-line system under different temperature conditions, we selected ambient temperature, 400°C, and 600°C as the temperature scenarios for our study, and conducted modal analysis for each.

Once again, I sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and guidance. Your feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and rigor of our manuscript.

2. I recommend analyzing several papers on methods of protecting structures from fire.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not sufficiently considering the analysis of methods for protecting structures from fire in the initial version of the manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have made the necessary adjustments in the revised version. Specifically, we have expanded the introduction to not only review existing studies on transmission towers under wind loads but also include research on the fire resistance of steel structures and steel components, particularly focusing on their fire resistance under high-temperature conditions.

We apologize once again for the omission in the original manuscript, and we truly appreciate your thoughtful guidance. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving the completeness of our paper.

3. In order to adhere to the principles of open science, I recommend submitting the Abaqus model as an appendix to the article. This way it can develop.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We fully agree with your recommendation to adhere to the principles of open science. To promote research transparency and facilitate the further development of the model, we will submit the Abaqus model as an appendix to the revised manuscript, allowing it to be accessible for peer review and further research.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your guidance, which has been instrumental in enhancing the openness and transparency of our work.

4. Conclusion 1 is trivial. I recommend adding suggestions for increasing strength.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not fully addressing the depth and significance of the findings in Conclusion 1 in the original manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have revised Conclusion 1 as follows:

The uneven horizontal spacing distribution reduces the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Compared to the condition with a horizontal spacing of 300 m (uniform distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members are significantly reduced when the horizontal spacing is 250 m (uneven distribution). The more uneven the distribution of the horizontal spacing, the lower the stability of the transmission tower-line system. When the horizontal spacing is 200 m (uneven distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members further decrease. During the design process, extreme uneven spacing distributions should be avoided to enhance the stability of the transmission tower.

We deeply apologize once again for not fully expressing this aspect in the initial version. Your suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality and applicability of our manuscript. We truly appreciate your thoughtful guidance.

Other comments:

5. References [...] should not be superscript.

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I apologize for the inconvenience caused by the superscript reference formatting in the manuscript. Following your guidance, I have made the necessary revisions and now all references are presented in the standard bracket format.

Once again, I truly appreciate your thorough review and constructive feedback, which have played a crucial role in improving the quality of the manuscript. I will continue to strive for excellence to meet the journal's standards.

Thank you for your time and effort.

6. Fix Table 2.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive review of my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for any issues you encountered with Table 2.

In response to your comment, I have carefully reviewed and made the necessary corrections to Table 2. I believe these adjustments improve the clarity and accuracy of the data presented.

Thank you once again for your invaluable feedback. I greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript, and I am truly sorry for any oversight.

7. Remove hieroglyphs in figures 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20. Add equivalent stress units.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for your meticulous and insightful review of my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for the oversight regarding the presence of hieroglyphs and the omission of stress units in the figures. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide such detailed feedback.

In response to your invaluable comment:

I have carefully removed the hieroglyphs in Figures 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 20, as you kindly pointed out.

I have also added the stress units (stress in Pa) in the figure captions for clarity, as reflected in the revised "Figure 8. The collapse process of transmission towers under ambient temperature conditions (stress in Pa)."

I deeply regret the initial omission and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. Your thorough and thoughtful suggestions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of this manuscript. I cannot express enough how much I value your constructive input.

Thank you once again for your patience, understanding, and the effort you put into reviewing my work. I am truly grateful for your guidance.

8. Fix commas in line 208 and tables 5, 7.

Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your thoughtful and
meticulous review of my manuscript. I sincerely apologize for any confusion or inconvenience
caused by the issues with the punctuation and formatting in line 208, as well as in Tables 5 and 7.
In response to your valuable comment:
I have carefully corrected the commas in line 208 to ensure proper grammatical structure and
clarity.
I have also made the necessary revisions to the commas in Tables 5 and 7, improving
consistency and clarity throughout.
I deeply regret the earlier oversight and humbly apologize for any inconvenience this may
have caused. Your feedback has been incredibly helpful in refining the quality of the manuscript,
and I greatly appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing my work.
Thank you once again for your patience and constructive suggestions. I am truly grateful for
your guidance.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower- 2 Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads", the research in the article focused on the study of the effects of temperature, uneven horizontal spacing distribution, and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the response of the transmission tower-line system by comparing collapse-resisting wind speeds and collapse processes under various conditions.

 

The following points must be taken into account:

It is necessary to modify the title, the word study is very general and it is necessary to be more specific, for example, from the title you can mention "ABAQUS Software"

 

Citations need to be improved, they are very poor, for example "Natural events like strong winds and earthquakes pose significant threats to structural integrity." Citations should be added.

 

In short, the introduction should be rewritten. The author mentions a lot of information about wind and towers, however the main topic of this article is fire and wind. The introduction should be improved and more quotes on the topic of fire and wind should be added.

 

The author justifies his research "The paper studied the effects of temperature, even horizontal spacing distribution, and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the response of the transmission tower-line system by comparing collapse-resisting wind speeds and collapse processes under various conditions." My question is, where the fires were.

 

In the 4. Project Overview and all point 5. Finite Element Simulation Results, They need to discuss and compare their results with other previously reported research, the author only limits himself with his own information and does not compare to highlight the importance of this work.

 

The conclusions are very simple, the author should specify more details in his conclusions.

 

The author must take care of his references, the reported references are very old and the author also repeats some authors a lot. My question is, are there no more investigations by other authors, why do you repeat?

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower- 2 Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads", the research in the article focused on the study of the effects of temperature, uneven horizontal spacing distribution, and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the response of the transmission tower-line system by comparing collapse-resisting wind speeds and collapse processes under various conditions.

The following points must be taken into account:

1. It is necessary to modify the title, the word study is very general and it is necessary to be more specific, for example, from the title you can mention "ABAQUS Software"

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for the use of the word "Study" in the title, which you pointed out as being too general. We regret not making the title more specific in the initial version. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the title to make it clearer and more precise. The new title is:

Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower-Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads Using ABAQUS.

We believe this revised title better reflects the core content of the study and the analytical tool used.

Once again, we sincerely apologize for the oversight and greatly appreciate your constructive suggestions. Your guidance has been instrumental in improving the quality of our paper.

2. 2. Citations need to be improved, they are very poor, for example "Natural events like strong winds and earthquakes pose significant threats to structural integrity." Citations should be added.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for the insufficient citations, particularly regarding statements such as "Natural events like strong winds and earthquakes pose significant threats to structural integrity," which lacked proper references. In response to your suggestion, we have added the relevant citations to these sections to improve the rigor and completeness of the manuscript.

Once again, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has played a crucial role in enhancing the quality of our paper.

3. 3. In short, the introduction should be rewritten. The author mentions a lot of information about wind and towers, however the main topic of this article is fire and wind. The introduction should be improved and more quotes on the topic of fire and wind should be added.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed review and valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not sufficiently emphasizing the combination of fire and wind loads in the introduction, as you rightly pointed out. Your feedback is highly appreciated, and we acknowledge that the initial manuscript did not adequately highlight the focus of our study on the combined effects of fire and wind on the transmission tower-line system.

In response to your suggestion, we have thoroughly revised the introduction to place greater emphasis on the topic of fire and wind loads. We have incorporated more relevant research on fire and wind, along with additional citations to strengthen the manuscript.

We once again sincerely apologize for the oversight in the original version. We are truly grateful for your constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript.

4. 4. The author justifies his research "The paper studied the effects of temperature, even horizontal spacing distribution, and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the response of the transmission tower-line system by comparing collapse-resisting wind speeds and collapse processes under various conditions." My question is, where the fires were.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and for raising an important question regarding the location of the fire. We sincerely apologize for not clearly specifying this in the original manuscript. To address your concern, we have added the following clarification in Section 2.1 of the manuscript:

The distance between the transmission tower’s conductor (or ground wire) and the ground is generally large, making it less affected by temperature. This paper exclusively examines the response of the transmission tower-line system when a fire occurs around the target transmission tower.

We believe this addition will clarify the situation, and we appreciate your thorough review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has helped us improve the clarity and accuracy of our paper.

5. 5. In the 4. Project Overview and all point 5. Finite Element Simulation Results, They need to discuss and compare their results with other previously reported research, the author only limits himself with his own information and does not compare to highlight the importance of this work.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not providing sufficient comparisons with previous research in Section 4, "Project Overview," and Section 5, "Finite Element Simulation Results." We understand that such comparisons are crucial for highlighting the significance and value of our work.

Currently, there is a relative lack of research on fire resistance of transmission towers, which has made it challenging for us to find appropriate literature for comparison. We deeply regret this shortcoming, as it may have affected the comprehensiveness of our paper and the adequate presentation of the research background. We fully understand your feedback, and we sincerely apologize for not addressing this important aspect in the initial version.

However, we assure you that the methods and results presented in this paper are based on rigorous analysis and are genuine and innovative. In response to your suggestions, we will review more relevant literature, incorporate comparisons with existing studies, and further emphasize the novelty and practical significance of our work. We will make every effort to improve the manuscript and ensure that the revised version includes a more thorough discussion and comparison with prior research.

Once again, we sincerely thank you for your detailed review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We deeply apologize for not fully meeting this important requirement in the original draft, and we are committed to addressing it in the revised version.

6. 6. The conclusions are very simple, the author should specify more details in his conclusions.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not providing sufficient detail and depth in the conclusions of the original manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have rewritten and expanded the conclusions to present our findings more clearly. The revised conclusions are as follows:

（1）The uneven horizontal spacing distribution reduces the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Compared to the condition with a horizontal spacing of 300 m (uniform distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members are significantly reduced when the horizontal spacing is 250 m (uneven distribution). The more uneven the distribution of the horizontal spacing, the lower the stability of the transmission tower-line system. When the horizontal spacing is 200 m (uneven distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members further decrease. During the design process, extreme uneven spacing distributions should be avoided to enhance the stability of the transmission tower.

（2）The increase in the target tower height reduces the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Compared to the condition with a tower base height of 0 m, the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members are significantly reduced when the tower base height is 50 m. During the design process, excessively high target towers should be avoided.

（3）As the temperature increases, the adverse effects of uneven horizontal spacing distribution and increased target tower height on the transmission tower become more significant. With rising temperatures, the structural disaster resistance gradually weakens. It is recommended to choose steel materials with higher fire resistance or apply fire-resistant coatings to existing steel to enhance the bearing capacity of the transmission tower in high-temperature environments.

（4）This paper investigates the disaster mechanism of transmission towers under the combined action of fire and wind loads, providing a reference for enhancing their disaster resistance and optimizing design schemes. Future research could further explore the impact of other disaster factors, such as ice and snow loads, seismic loads, etc., on transmission towers, offering insights for the design and safety assessment of transmission towers in complex environments.  

Once again, we sincerely apologize for the lack of detail in the conclusions of the original version. Your suggestions have been instrumental in improving the quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful guidance and thorough review.

7. The author must take care of his references, the reported references are very old and the author also repeats some authors a lot. My question is, are there no more investigations by other authors, why do you repeat?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for the outdated references and the repeated citation of the same authors in the original manuscript. We recognize that updating and diversifying the references is crucial for the rigor of the paper, and we regret not fully considering this in the initial draft. Please accept our sincerest apologies for this oversight.

In response to your suggestion, we have thoroughly revised the introduction and incorporated more recent studies to ensure that the references are more diverse and up-to-date. Additionally, we have taken care to avoid repeatedly citing the same authors and have made efforts to present a broader range of relevant research to improve the scientific validity and comprehensiveness of the citations.

Once again, we appreciate your detailed review, and your feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We will continue to make every effort to ensure the accuracy and quality of the references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, entitled "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower- 2 Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads” determined the failure criteria for transmission tower components at high temperatures by considering the constitutive relationship of steel at ambient temperature, the variation patterns in material strength and elastic modulus with temperature, and the buckling failure characteristics of slender angle steel components under compression.” These analyses were carried out using a finite element model of the transmission tower-line system which was established in ABAQUS software. The research indicates that the load-bearing capacity of the transmission tower-line system decreases as temperature increases.

 

First of all, I have to thank you for your effort to do such a valuable study.

 

After carefully reviewing this manuscript, my recommendation is a Major Revision for the following reasons:

1.     In the entire manuscript, check the Journal submission guidelines (e.g., references and text formatting).

2.     The authors must follow the Reference list and Citations Style Guide for MDPI Journals (https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v9.pdf).

3.     A brief English revision is required.

4.     The abstract should be rewritten emphasizing the article’s findings.

5.     Identification of research gaps is a critical component of any research article. This section is not well written in its current form. Define it systematically.

6.     The authors should improve the quality (font and visualization) of figures 1, 3, 6, 9, and 14.

7.     Authors must justify the temperature values (400 and 600º C) used in the article. Are these values observed in fires that can occur on Transmission Tower Line Systems?

8.     Correct the formatting of tables 3 and 5.

9.     How was the data (wind load) shown in Figure 3 obtained?

10.  Line 208 – Formatting

11.  Authors are invited to present the parameters used as well as the software (ABAQUS) used in the work.

12.  Quote the unit of measure in Figure 4.

13.  Figure 8 - Are the times shown in figures “c” and “d” correct?

14.  Figures 12, 17, and 21 - Modify the temperature legend to allow better visualization of the effect of temperature on the structure's behavior.

15.  Authors must justify the horizontal spacing used in their work.

16.  The reviewer felt that there was a lack of a better justification of the importance of the work for the development of society, as well as its application to other Transmission Tower Line Systems.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, entitled "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower- 2 Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads” determined the failure criteria for transmission tower components at high temperatures by considering the constitutive relationship of steel at ambient temperature, the variation patterns in material strength and elastic modulus with temperature, and the buckling failure characteristics of slender angle steel components under compression.” These analyses were carried out using a finite element model of the transmission tower-line system which was established in ABAQUS software. The research indicates that the load-bearing capacity of the transmission tower-line system decreases as temperature increases.

First of all, I have to thank you for your effort to do such a valuable study.

After carefully reviewing this manuscript, my recommendation is a Major Revision for the following reasons:

1. 1.In the entire manuscript, check the Journal submission guidelines (e.g., references and text formatting).

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide valuable feedback. We deeply apologize for not fully complying with the submission guidelines in the initial draft. In response to your comment regarding the need to check the manuscript for adherence to the journal's submission guidelines (e.g., references and text formatting), we have carefully reviewed and made the necessary corrections.

Thank you again for your patience and detailed guidance. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be most grateful and are happy to make any additional revisions.

2. 2.The authors must follow the Reference list and Citations Style Guide for MDPI Journals (https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v9.pdf).

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing valuable feedback. We deeply apologize for not fully adhering to the MDPI reference list and citation style guide in the initial draft.

We have carefully reviewed the MDPI Reference List and Citations Style Guide and have made the necessary corrections to ensure that all references and citations are in full compliance with the guidelines. We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and apologize for the oversight.

Thank you again for your patience and meticulous guidance. Your constructive feedback has been crucial in improving our manuscript. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be grateful and are more than willing to make additional revisions.

Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your understanding and support.

3.A brief English revision is required.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude for your invaluable feedback. I sincerely apologize for any shortcomings in the manuscript that may have led to confusion or inconvenience.

In response to your suggestion for a brief revision, I have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary modifications, including both language and content revisions, in response to your comments. The manuscript has been updated accordingly, and all changes are now clearly visible in track changes mode.

I truly appreciate your thoughtful review, and I apologize for any oversight on my part. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving the overall quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your time and effort.

4. The abstract should be rewritten emphasizing the article’s findings.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not fully emphasizing the key findings of the paper in the abstract of the original manuscript. We understand that the abstract should clearly present the core results and contributions of the study. In response to your suggestion, we have rewritten the abstract to better highlight the main findings and contributions of the research. The revised abstract is as follows:

Transmission lines are typically located outdoors and are subjected to wind loads throughout the year. However, when a fire occurs, transmission towers are exposed to the combined effects of fire and wind loads. This paper investigates the impact of high temperatures on the bearing capacity of transmission tower-line systems under wind load and explores how uneven horizontal spacing distribution and changes in the elevation of the target tower affect the system's bearing capacity. The failure criteria for transmission tower components at high temperatures were determined by considering the constitutive relationship of steel at ambient temperature and the variation patterns in material strength and elastic modulus with temperature. A finite element model of the transmission tower-line system was developed using ABAQUS software. The study compares the collapse-resisting wind speeds and collapse processes of the transmission tower-line system under various conditions to examine the effects of temperature, uneven horizontal spacing distribution, and changes in the elevation of the target tower. The research findings indicate that the load-bearing capacity of the transmission tower-line system decreases as temperature rises. When the temperature exceeds 400°C, the collapse-resisting wind speed of the transmission tower sharply declines, and at temperatures above 600°C, the tower may collapse even under the annual average wind speed. Furthermore, uneven horizontal spacing distribution and increases in tower height negatively affect the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Based on these findings, it is recommended to use steel materials with higher fire resistance, apply fire-resistant coatings to existing steel, and avoid extreme uneven spacing distributions and excessively high target tower elevations.

We sincerely apologize for not fully presenting these key findings in the original version. Your careful review and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in improving the manuscript. Thank you again for your guidance.

5. Identification of research gaps is a critical component of any research article. This section is not well written in its current form. Define it systematically.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not clearly and systematically defining the research gaps in the original manuscript. We understand that identifying the research gaps is crucial for highlighting the innovation and importance of the study. We deeply regret not addressing this more effectively in the initial version, and we apologize for this oversight.

In response to your suggestion, we have added the following statement at the end of the third paragraph of the introduction to clarify the research gap:

Although the performance of steel structures and steel components in fire has been extensively studied, research on transmission towers under fire conditions remains relatively scarce.

Furthermore, to better address your feedback, we will expand on this section in the revised version, providing a more systematic definition of the research gaps to better highlight the contributions and innovation of this study. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful guidance, and your suggestions have been instrumental in improving the manuscript.

6. The authors should improve the quality (font and visualization) of figures 1, 3, 6, 9, and 14.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your insightful review. I sincerely apologize for any issues with the quality of the figures in the manuscript.

In response to your comment about improving the quality of Figures 1, 3, 6, 9, and 14, I have carefully revised these figures by enhancing the font clarity and improving the overall visualization. The figures have been updated to ensure better resolution, legibility, and clarity.

I truly appreciate your valuable feedback, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused by these issues. Your suggestions have greatly improved the presentation and quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your time and thoughtful review.

7. Authors must justify the temperature values (400 and 600º C) used in the article. Are these values observed in fires that can occur on Transmission Tower Line Systems?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We apologize for not providing a clear justification for the temperature values of 400°C and 600°C in the original manuscript. We understand the importance of ensuring that these temperature values are relevant to actual fire scenarios that could occur in Transmission Tower Line Systems.

The temperatures of 400°C and 600°C were selected based on the following considerations:

400°C: At this temperature, steel experiences some loss of strength and stiffness, but the degradation is not as pronounced as at higher temperatures. While steel components at 400°C may begin to soften and lose some of their load-bearing capacity, they generally maintain a significant portion of their original strength. This temperature was chosen as it can represent moderate fire conditions that might occur in transmission tower-line systems.

600°C: At this temperature, steel undergoes a more significant loss of strength and stiffness. The degradation of mechanical properties is much more pronounced at 600°C, leading to a greater reduction in the structural integrity of steel components. This temperature is often observed in more extreme fire scenarios, where the combination of sustained high temperatures and the prolonged exposure to fire conditions causes substantial weakening of the material.

Once again, thank you for your careful review and insightful suggestions. Your feedback has greatly helped improve the manuscript, and we are committed to making these clarifications in the revised version.

8. Correct the formatting of tables 3 and 5.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your thoughtful and meticulous review. I sincerely apologize for any issues you encountered with the formatting of Tables 3 and 5.

In response to your comment, I have carefully reviewed and corrected the formatting of Tables 3 and 5 to ensure consistency and clarity. I believe these changes have greatly improved the overall presentation of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my work, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the formatting issues. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you again for your valuable input.

9. How was the data (wind load) shown in Figure 3 obtained?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable question. We sincerely apologize for not providing a clear explanation of the source of the wind load data in Figure 3 in the original manuscript. Your question is very important, and it has helped us express the data source more clearly.

To address this, we have added the following clarification in Section 3.2 "Load Application":

A MATLAB program was developed to calculate the Davenport gust wind speed spectrum. The program generates the required wind load dynamic time history, which is then input into Abaqus to simulate the dynamic effect of wind load on the transmission tower.

We believe this addition will help readers better understand the process of obtaining the wind load data. Once again, thank you for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving our manuscript, and we sincerely apologize for not clearly explaining this point in the original draft.

10. Line 208 – Formatting

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for the formatting issue you pointed out on Line 208. We have made the necessary corrections, and we regret any inconvenience this may have caused. We truly appreciate your careful attention and patient guidance.

If you have any further suggestions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. We would be happy to provide any additional information you may require.

11. Authors are invited to present the parameters used as well as the software (ABAQUS) used in the work.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback. We sincerely apologize for not providing a more detailed explanation of the parameters used and the software employed in the original manuscript.

In response to your request, we have updated Section 3.1, "Finite Element Model" and Section 3.2, "Load Application" to include more comprehensive descriptions:

Section 3.1: Finite Element Model – We have now clearly presented the relevant input parameters, such as material properties and element types, and explained how ABAQUS was used to model the transmission tower-line system and simulate its response under various loads.

Section 3.2: Load Application – We have detailed the specific wind load parameters applied in the simulations, including the calculation of wind speed using the Davenport gust spectrum. The dynamic time history of the wind load was generated with a MATLAB program, which was then input into ABAQUS to simulate the wind effects on the system.

We hope these additions provide a clearer understanding of our methodology and the assumptions made in the study. We greatly appreciate your insightful feedback, and these details have been incorporated into the revised manuscript to enhance clarity.

Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we apologize for any lack of detail in the initial manuscript.

12. Quote the unit of measure in Figure 4.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for the oversight regarding the unit of measure in Figure 4. We have now included the relevant unit in the figure to ensure completeness.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and truly appreciate your patience and careful attention. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be most grateful and happy to assist you in any way.

13. Figure 8 - Are the times shown in figures “c” and “d” correct?

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your time and valuable feedback in reviewing our manuscript. We deeply apologize for the error regarding the times shown in Figures “c” and “d” of Figure 8. Due to an oversight on our part, the times in these figures should indeed be swapped. We have made the necessary corrections, and we have ensured that the times are now accurate.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and are truly appreciative of your careful attention and patient guidance. Should you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be most grateful and ready to provide any additional information or clarification.

14. Figures 12, 17, and 21 - Modify the temperature legend to allow better visualization of the effect of temperature on the structure's behavior.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide such invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for the issue you raised regarding "Figures 12, 17, and 21 - Modify the temperature legend to allow better visualization of the effect of temperature on the structure's behavior." In response, we have revised the legend, optimizing the color contrast to better highlight the impact of temperature on the structure’s behavior. Additionally, we have improved the clarity of the figures to ensure they are more readable.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and are truly grateful for your patience and meticulous review. Your feedback has been instrumental in improving the manuscript.

15. Authors must justify the horizontal spacing used in their work.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not providing a clear explanation of the justification for the horizontal spacing in the original manuscript.

The 300m horizontal spacing used in the three-tower, four-line model is based on a real-world project and serves as the foundation for our study. To investigate the effects of uneven horizontal spacing distribution on the stability, we selected 250m and 200m as the uneven horizontal spacing values for comparison.

Once again, thank you for your detailed review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the quality of our paper.

16. The reviewer felt that there was a lack of a better justification of the importance of the work for the development of society, as well as its application to other Transmission Tower Line Systems.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not sufficiently emphasizing the importance of the work for societal development and its applicability to other Transmission Tower Line Systems in the original manuscript.

In response to your suggestion, we have added the following to the conclusion:

(4) This paper investigates the disaster mechanism of transmission towers under the combined action of fire and wind loads, providing a reference for enhancing their disaster resistance and optimizing design schemes. Future research could further explore the impact of other disaster factors, such as ice and snow loads, seismic loads, etc., on transmission towers, offering insights for the design and safety assessment of transmission towers in complex environments.

Once again, thank you for your thorough review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been crucial in improving the manuscript, and we sincerely apologize for not adequately addressing this point in the original draft.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower-Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads" paper explores the structural behavior and failure mechanisms of transmission tower-line systems when subjected to combined fire and wind loads. Using finite element modeling in ABAQUS, the study investigates the effects of elevated temperatures, uneven horizontal spacing, and tower elevation on transmission towers' stability and collapse-resisting wind speeds. Key findings indicate that the structural load-bearing capacity decreases significantly as temperatures rise, with temperatures above 400°C leading to sharp reductions in wind resistance. Uneven horizontal spacing and increased tower elevation also exacerbate structural instability under fire and wind load conditions. The research highlights critical factors for improving the design and resilience of transmission towers against multi-hazard scenarios.

Comments:

The paper could benefit from a clearer statement of its primary objectives and the practical implications of the findings for designing transmission towers.

Add more visual aids, such as detailed graphs or diagrams, to better illustrate key findings, especially the effects of uneven spacing and elevated temperatures on collapse processes.

Discuss how wind variability (e.g., gusts or directional changes) might influence the collapse mechanisms, as this could affect real-world applicability.

Suggest areas for future research, such as exploring mitigation strategies or the effects of additional environmental factors like icing or seismic loads.

How do you account for potential interaction effects between wind loads and structural deformation caused by fire-induced material degradation?

Could this methodology be extended to other types of structures, such as bridges or building frameworks, to assess multi-hazard resilience?

How does the choice of model parameters (e.g., boundary conditions, material assumptions) influence the results, and what steps were taken to ensure robustness?

Would varying the wind load application points or incorporating dynamic wind characteristics alter the observed collapse patterns?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review for minor grammatical issues, such as article usage and sentence structure.

Simplify complex sentences to improve clarity and accessibility.

Ensure consistent terminology throughout the paper, particularly for technical terms like "collapse-resisting wind speed."

Reduce the use of passive voice in some sections to make the writing more engaging.

Improve figure captions to ensure they are standalone and provide sufficient context without requiring reference to the main text.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The "Study on the Multi-Hazard Responses of Transmission Tower-Line Systems Under Fire and Wind Loads" paper explores the structural behavior and failure mechanisms of transmission tower-line systems when subjected to combined fire and wind loads. Using finite element modeling in ABAQUS, the study investigates the effects of elevated temperatures, uneven horizontal spacing, and tower elevation on transmission towers' stability and collapse-resisting wind speeds. Key findings indicate that the structural load-bearing capacity decreases significantly as temperatures rise, with temperatures above 400°C leading to sharp reductions in wind resistance. Uneven horizontal spacing and increased tower elevation also exacerbate structural instability under fire and wind load conditions. The research highlights critical factors for improving the design and resilience of transmission towers against multi-hazard scenarios.

Comments:

1. 1. The paper could benefit from a clearer statement of its primary objectives and the practical implications of the findings for designing transmission towers.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not clearly articulating the primary objectives of the study and the practical implications of the findings in the original manuscript. Your suggestions have been extremely helpful in guiding us to improve the clarity and structure of the paper.

In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions to the abstract and conclusion to more clearly highlight the study's primary objectives and the practical applications of the findings for the design of transmission towers。

Abstract：When a fire occurs, transmission towers are exposed to the combined effects of fire and wind loads. The paper investigates the impact of high temperatures on the bearing capacity of transmission tower-line systems under wind load, and explores the effects of uneven horizontal spacing distribution and changes in the elevation of the target tower on the bearing capacity of the tower-line system.

Conclusion：

（1）The uneven horizontal spacing distribution reduces the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Compared to the condition with a horizontal spacing of 300 m (uniform distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members are significantly reduced when the horizontal spacing is 250 m (uneven distribution). The more uneven the distribution of the horizontal spacing, the lower the stability of the transmission tower-line system. When the horizontal spacing is 200 m (uneven distribution), the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members further decrease. During the design process, extreme uneven spacing distributions should be avoided to enhance the stability of the transmission tower.

（2）The increase in the target tower height reduces the stability of the transmission tower-line system. Compared to the condition with a tower base height of 0 m, the collapse-resisting wind speeds of the observed members are significantly reduced when the tower base height is 50 m. During the design process, excessively high target towers should be avoided.

（3）As the temperature increases, the adverse effects of uneven horizontal spacing distribution and increased target tower height on the transmission tower become more significant. With rising temperatures, the structural disaster resistance gradually weakens. It is recommended to choose steel materials with higher fire resistance or apply fire-resistant coatings to existing steel to enhance the bearing capacity of the transmission tower in high-temperature environments.

（4）This paper investigates the disaster mechanism of transmission towers under the combined action of fire and wind loads, providing a reference for enhancing their disaster resistance and optimizing design schemes. Future research could further explore the impact of other disaster factors, such as ice and snow loads, seismic loads, etc., on transmission towers, offering insights for the design and safety assessment of transmission towers in complex environments.

We believe these revisions provide a clearer explanation of both the objectives of the study and its practical implications for transmission tower design. Once again, we apologize for not sufficiently presenting these points in the original manuscript. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the clarity and impact of our work.

2. 2. Add more visual aids, such as detailed graphs or diagrams, to better illustrate key findings, especially the effects of uneven spacing and elevated temperatures on collapse processes.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We sincerely apologize for not fully incorporating more visual aids, such as detailed graphs or diagrams, to better illustrate key findings, particularly the effects of uneven spacing and elevated temperatures on collapse processes, in the original manuscript.

To clarify further, our simulation analysis revealed that the primary differences in the collapse process across various conditions lie in the collapse time and collapse-resisting wind speeds. We have explained these differences in detail in the manuscript, using graphs and tables to present the results. We will enhance the visual aids by adding more intuitive diagrams to more clearly demonstrate the effects of uneven spacing and elevated temperatures on the collapse process.

Once again, thank you for your careful review and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been invaluable in improving the quality of our paper. We sincerely apologize for not adequately addressing this aspect in the original draft.

3. 3. Discuss how wind variability (e.g., gusts or directional changes) might influence the collapse mechanisms, as this could affect real-world applicability.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. The point you raised regarding the influence of wind variability (such as gusts or directional changes) on collapse mechanisms is indeed crucial and has significant implications for the real-world applicability of the study.

Due to time constraints, we were unable to thoroughly discuss the impact of wind load variability on the collapse mechanisms in this revision. We sincerely apologize for not addressing this aspect, as incorporating such a discussion could delay the submission beyond the deadline. However, we assure you that we will include a detailed exploration of wind load variability in our future work, following your suggestion. We are truly grateful for your insightful comments, and   we will consider this as an important direction for our upcoming research.

Once again, thank you for your careful review and valuable guidance. We will make every effort to address this aspect in future studies, and we apologize for not fully addressing it in this revision.

4. 4. Suggest areas for future research, such as exploring mitigation strategies or the effects of additional environmental factors like icing or seismic loads.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. The point you raised regarding the influence of wind variability (such as gusts or directional changes) on collapse mechanisms is indeed crucial and has significant implications for the real-world applicability of the study.

Due to time constraints, we were unable to thoroughly discuss the impact of wind load variability on the collapse mechanisms in this revision. We sincerely apologize for not addressing this aspect, as incorporating such a discussion could delay the submission beyond the deadline. However, we assure you that we will include a detailed exploration of wind load variability in our future work, following your suggestion. We are truly grateful for your insightful comments, and we will consider this as an important direction for our upcoming research.

Once again, thank you for your careful review and valuable guidance. We will make every effort to address this aspect in future studies, and we apologize for not fully addressing it in this revision.

5. 5. How do you account for potential interaction effects between wind loads and structural deformation caused by fire-induced material degradation?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful question. We sincerely apologize for not providing a clear explanation of how we account for the potential interaction effects between wind loads and structural deformation caused by fire-induced material degradation in the original manuscript.

To clarify, we have already incorporated the necessary settings in ABAQUS to address this interaction. Specifically, we use a damage evolution model within the material properties module. Once a component reaches its failure criteria, it is deactivated in the analysis and does not influence the remaining undamaged components. This allows us to consider the effects of fire-induced material degradation while still accounting for the influence of wind loads on the damaged components. The corresponding additions have been made in Section 3.1, the Finite Element Model.

We hope this explanation resolves the concern, and we truly appreciate your valuable feedback. Thank you again for your careful review.

6. 6. Could this methodology be extended to other types of structures, such as bridges or building frameworks, to assess multi-hazard resilience?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful question. Yes, the methodology used in this study could be extended to other types of structures, such as bridges or building frameworks, to assess their resilience under combined wind and fire loads. The approach is adaptable to different structural systems, provided the relevant structural characteristics and loading conditions are taken into account.

Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback.

7. 7. How does the choice of model parameters (e.g., boundary conditions, material assumptions) influence the results, and what steps were taken to ensure robustness?

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for providing such invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for not providing a more detailed explanation regarding the influence of model parameters (e.g., boundary conditions, material assumptions) on the results, as well as the steps taken to ensure robustness.

In response to your comment, we offer the following explanation:

Boundary Conditions: In the ABAQUS model, we applied a fixed boundary condition at the base of the transmission tower and hinged boundary conditions at both ends of the conductors. These boundary conditions were chosen to accurately represent the real-world constraints of the transmission tower and conductors, ensuring the model’s physical realism.

Material Assumptions: As detailed in Table 1. Materials and parameters, we defined material properties for each component of the transmission tower. The main tower material is Q345 and Q235 steel, while the conductors are modeled as LGJ-400/50 and JLB-150. We took into account the temperature-dependent changes in material strength and elasticity. For compression members, failure occurs when the strain reaches the buckling limit, and for tension members, failure is considered when the ultimate strain (0.02) is reached.

We sincerely apologize for not providing this explanation earlier and greatly appreciate your patience and thoughtful guidance. Your invaluable input has significantly contributed to improving the manuscript.

If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be grateful to address them and make any necessary revisions.

8. 8. Would varying the wind load application points or incorporating dynamic wind characteristics alter the observed collapse patterns?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your insightful question. In response to both this and your earlier comment regarding wind variability, we acknowledge that varying the application points of wind loads or incorporating dynamic wind characteristics could indeed influence the observed collapse patterns.

If wind load application points were varied, the distribution and intensity of the loads on the structure would change, potentially altering the collapse mechanisms. For example, wind applied at different points along the tower could result in different load distributions, which may affect the timing and location of structural failure. Similarly, incorporating dynamic wind characteristics, such as gusts or directional changes, could also impact the collapse behavior. Dynamic wind forces could introduce additional time-dependent effects, leading to more complex interaction between the structure and the wind load, which might alter the collapse sequence or critical failure points.

These factors would certainly improve the accuracy and applicability of the model for real-world scenarios, where wind conditions are rarely static. However, due to time constraints, such dynamic aspects were not included in the current study, though we recognize their importance and plan to explore them in future research.

Once again, thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your guidance, and we apologize for not incorporating these aspects in the current manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

9. 9. Review for minor grammatical issues, such as article usage and sentence structure.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable feedback is greatly appreciated.

We have carefully addressed all the points you raised, particularly those regarding minor grammatical issues, article usage, and sentence structure. We have made detailed revisions to improve the clarity, conciseness, and overall quality of the paper, in line with your suggestions.

We deeply apologize for any shortcomings in the manuscript prior to your review. Your constructive comments have been instrumental in helping us improve the paper, and we have made every effort to implement your recommendations to ensure the manuscript meets a higher standard. We believe the revisions have resulted in a clearer and more logically structured manuscript.

Once again, thank you very much for your insightful comments and support. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be more than happy to address them.

Thank you again for your patience and understanding.

10. 10. Simplify complex sentences to improve clarity and accessibility.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your suggestions, particularly focusing on simplifying complex sentences to improve clarity and accessibility. We sincerely apologize for any previous shortcomings in sentence structure and readability. Your comments have been invaluable in helping us make these necessary improvements.

Once again, we express our deepest gratitude for your insights, and we are very sorry for any issues you encountered in the initial version. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the high standards you expect. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be more than happy to address them.

Thank you again for your understanding and for your continued support.

11. 11. Ensure consistent terminology throughout the paper, particularly for technical terms like "collapse-resisting wind speed."

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide such invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for not ensuring complete consistency in the terminology, particularly for technical terms such as "collapse-resisting wind speed," in the initial draft.

We have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all technical terms are used consistently throughout, especially the term you pointed out. We fully understand the importance of terminology consistency for the clarity and accuracy of the paper, and we have made the necessary adjustments to address this issue.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and are truly grateful for your patience and meticulous guidance. Your constructive feedback has been essential in improving our manuscript.

If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be most grateful and are more than willing to make any additional revisions or clarifications.

Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience and greatly appreciate your understanding and support.

12. 12. Reduce the use of passive voice in some sections to make the writing more engaging.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work.

We have carefully addressed your comments and made revisions, particularly with regard to reducing the use of passive voice in certain sections, as per your recommendation. We sincerely apologize for any lack of engagement caused by the passive constructions in the initial version. Your valuable insights have helped us improve the readability and impact of the manuscript.

Once again, we deeply appreciate your time, patience, and suggestions. We are very sorry for any inconvenience caused by the earlier version of the manuscript. If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be more than happy to make additional improvements.

Thank you once again for your support and understanding.

13. 13. Improve figure captions to ensure they are standalone and provide sufficient context without requiring reference to the main text.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and provide such invaluable feedback. We deeply apologize for not ensuring that the figure captions were standalone and provided sufficient context in the initial draft.

In response to your suggestion, we have thoroughly revised all figure captions to ensure that each one can stand independently and provide adequate context without the need for reference to the main text. We understand the importance of clear and self-contained figure captions for the clarity and accessibility of the paper, and we have made sure to include all necessary information in the captions themselves.

We sincerely regret any inconvenience this may have caused and are truly grateful for your patience and meticulous guidance. Your constructive feedback has been crucial in improving the quality of our manuscript.

If you have any further suggestions or concerns, we would be most grateful and are more than willing to make any additional revisions or clarifications.

Once again, we apologize for any inconvenience and greatly appreciate your understanding and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account some comments. However, the description of the model is still not clear enough to understand the study. The authors answered that the analysis is quasi-static, i.e. mass, acceleration, damping and velocity are not taken into account. This does not allow modeling vibrations (they are discussed in 264) and resonance phenomena that are characteristic of such structures. Resonance can be more dangerous than static loading. Please clearly indicate the type of analysis (as it is called in Abaqus). It is not clear why the authors did not use a more adequate dynamic analysis.

The authors also did not answer how the modal analysis is related to the subsequent wind load analysis. Are there frequencies in the wind load spectrum that are close to the natural frequencies?

The authors promised to add the model file to the article, but they did not. With it I could give more detailed advice.

The authors should also fix minor errors. In particular:

- Comma font 273.

- Modal analysis also belongs to FEA, so it should be presented in section 5. Or rename section 5.

- Replace "Figure 4" with "Figure 5" (285).

- Identical references 2, 3.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The authors have taken into account some comments. However, the description of the model is still not clear enough to understand the study. The authors answered that the analysis is quasi-static, i.e. mass, acceleration, damping and velocity are not taken into account. This does not allow modeling vibrations (they are discussed in 264) and resonance phenomena that are characteristic of such structures. Resonance can be more dangerous than static loading. Please clearly indicate the type of analysis (as it is called in Abaqus). It is not clear why the authors did not use a more adequate dynamic analysis.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for your meticulous review of my manuscript. Your invaluable feedback has not only highlighted the shortcomings in my paper but also made me realize the significant gaps in the model description and analysis methods. I deeply apologize for not clearly and accurately presenting our analysis approach and model setup in the initial submission, and I truly regret any confusion this may have caused. I feel deeply remorseful for the oversight.

Regarding the points you raised about the “lack of clarity in the model description” and the “inability of the quasi-static analysis to simulate vibrations and resonance phenomena,” I have carefully reconsidered the manuscript and would like to clarify the issues as follows:

(1) Clarification of the Analysis Type: In our study, wind loads were indeed considered as dynamic loads and subjected to dynamic analysis. Specifically, we utilized a MATLAB program to compute the Davenport turbulent wind speed spectrum, generated the corresponding dynamic load time history, and input it into Abaqus for dynamic analysis. This process fully accounts for the dynamic characteristics of the wind load, and we also considered the effects of gravity on the structure. Therefore, wind loads were not treated as quasi-static, but as dynamic loads within a dynamic analysis framework. I sincerely apologize for not having clearly stated this distinction in the initial manuscript.

(2) Clarification Regarding Quasi-static vs. Dynamic Analysis: You correctly pointed out that a quasi-static analysis does not account for mass, acceleration, damping, and velocity, making it unsuitable for modeling vibrations and resonance phenomena. I completely understand your concern and deeply regret the lack of clarity in this regard. I would like to emphasize once again that the analysis conducted in our study is indeed dynamic, not quasi-static. The wind load was treated as a dynamic load in Abaqus, and the damping of the structure was defined using Abaqus's material properties module. Additionally, temperature effects were applied through the predefined field manager in Abaqus’s load module. I apologize once again for the insufficient explanation in the original manuscript, and I will make sure to clearly clarify this point in the revised version.

Once again, I would like to sincerely thank you for your careful review and thoughtful suggestions. Your comments have not only improved the quality of the manuscript but have also prompted me to reflect more deeply on the model and analysis methods. I deeply regret the shortcomings in the initial submission and I will do my utmost to address them in the revised manuscript to ensure your feedback is fully addressed.

Thank you once again for your time and effort in reviewing my paper. I look forward to receiving your further guidance.

2. The authors also did not answer how the modal analysis is related to the subsequent wind load analysis. Are there frequencies in the wind load spectrum that are close to the natural frequencies?

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your detailed review and invaluable feedback on our manuscript. I deeply apologize for not sufficiently addressing the relationship between modal analysis and wind load analysis in the initial draft, and for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused. I sincerely apologize and would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant analyses.

In our study, the primary aim of the modal analysis was to investigate the impact of different temperature conditions on the stability of the transmission tower-line system. The focus of this analysis was to study how the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the structure are influenced by temperature variations, in order to evaluate the structural stability under various environmental conditions.

For the wind load calculation, we used a MATLAB program to compute the Davenport turbulent wind speed spectrum, from which we derived the required dynamic wind load time histories. These were then input into Abaqus to simulate the dynamic effects of wind load on the transmission towers. The wind loads were applied at 24 nodes on each transmission tower, with different wind load values applied at each node to more accurately simulate the dynamic effects of wind load on the structure.

Although modal analysis and wind load analysis were performed separately in our current study, we understand the relationship between the two, particularly the potential overlap between the frequencies in the wind load spectrum and the natural frequencies of the structure. This could lead to resonance phenomena, which would affect the structural response. We did not consider this aspect in the current study, but we recognize its importance and plan to fully incorporate the interaction between modal analysis and dynamic wind load effects in future research.

Once again, I sincerely apologize for not addressing this aspect in the current manuscript. We will ensure that this issue is thoroughly considered in future studies.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback and patient guidance. We look forward to your further comments and will make every effort to improve the manuscript.

3. The authors promised to add the model file to the article, but they did not. With it I could give more detailed advice.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to carefully review my manuscript and for providing such valuable feedback. Your detailed guidance and suggestions have been incredibly helpful and insightful. However, I deeply regret that in my previous response, I failed to upload the Abaqus model file as promised, and for that, I sincerely apologize.

Due to my oversight, I did not provide the model file in time, which prevented you from offering more detailed feedback based on the complete set of materials. I fully understand the inconvenience and frustration this caused, and I deeply regret the extra burden it placed on you. I realize that this oversight not only affected the efficiency of your review but also added unnecessary difficulty to the process, for which I am truly sorry.

Please rest assured that I will upload the Abaqus model file in the revised version of the manuscript, so that you can review it properly. Once again, I apologize deeply for this mistake, and I understand that this should not have happened, especially given how valuable your time is.

I sincerely hope that you can understand my mistake, and I will take every precaution to ensure that such an issue does not occur in the future. Thank you again for your patience and understanding, and I am committed to improving the manuscript based on your valuable suggestions.

I look forward to your further guidance and again, I deeply appreciate your understanding and support.

4.Comma font 273.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your meticulous review of my manuscript and for the invaluable feedback you provided. I sincerely apologize for not paying attention to the "Comma font 273" issue in the initial submission, which has caused unnecessary inconvenience and confusion. I deeply regret this oversight and offer my sincerest apologies.

I fully recognize that this issue, due to my negligence, was not properly addressed before submission, and I understand that this not only delayed the review process but also wasted your precious time. For this, I am truly sorry. I have now corrected the issue, ensuring that the formatting and layout are in full compliance with the required standards.

Once again, I deeply apologize for this mistake and thank you for pointing it out. Your feedback is of utmost importance to me, and I will be more diligent moving forward to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.

Thank you for your understanding and support, and I look forward to your further guidance.

5.Modal analysis also belongs to FEA, so it should be presented in section 5. Or rename section 5.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous and thorough review of my manuscript. I am truly honored to receive your valuable guidance, and I deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my work. I sincerely apologize for not fully addressing your suggestion regarding the structure of the manuscript in my initial submission. I deeply regret the inconvenience this oversight has caused, and I offer my sincerest apologies.

Regarding your insightful comment on the modal analysis, I now fully understand the importance and rationale of your suggestion to include it in Section 5 as part of the finite element analysis (FEA), or alternatively, to rename Section 5 accordingly. I apologize again for not adequately considering this structural aspect in the initial draft. Thanks to your careful observation, we have now revised the manuscript to move the "4. Modal Analysis" section to 4.1, and we have adjusted the section title and content structure to ensure the logical flow of the paper is clearer and more precise. I regret the inconvenience this may have caused and express my deepest apologies once again.

Your valuable feedback has played a crucial role in improving the manuscript, and I will be more diligent in reviewing every section to ensure that similar oversights do not occur in the future. I am deeply aware of the value of your time, and I deeply regret any inconvenience I may have caused you. Please rest assured that I will learn from this mistake and take extra care in future submissions.

Once again, I sincerely thank you for your thoughtful guidance and your invaluable support in improving my paper. Your help means a great deal to me. I look forward to your further suggestions on the revised manuscript and will continue to make improvements to ensure it is as refined as possible.

6.Replace "Figure 4" with "Figure 5" (285).

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for your meticulous review of my manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has been invaluable, and I deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process. I sincerely apologize for overlooking the detail regarding the "Figure 4" and "Figure 5" issue in the initial draft, and I regret the inconvenience this may have caused you.

I fully understand the importance of your suggestion, and I have made the necessary corrections by replacing "Figure 4" with "Figure 5" as per your recommendation to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the manuscript. Once again, I deeply apologize for this oversight, which should have been addressed earlier in the submission.

Your comments are extremely valuable to me, and I will be much more careful and diligent in reviewing every detail of the manuscript to avoid similar errors in the future. I sincerely thank you for your patience and thoughtful guidance, and I will use this experience as a reminder to improve my work going forward.

Thank you again for your continued support and guidance. I look forward to receiving any further suggestions or advice you may have.

7.Identical references 2, 3.

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude for your meticulous and thoughtful review of my manuscript. Your invaluable feedback is a tremendous help to me, and I feel truly honored to have received your guidance. I sincerely apologize for the oversight regarding the identical references 2 and 3 in my initial submission. I deeply regret this mistake, as I failed to carefully check the reference list, which resulted in this issue. I truly apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you.

I fully understand the critical importance of the accuracy and uniqueness of references in a manuscript. Your comment has made me realize this more profoundly, and I sincerely apologize for not addressing this earlier. I have since carefully reviewed and corrected the references to ensure that each citation is unique and accurate.

I deeply regret that this oversight was not caught before submission, and I truly appreciate the time you have taken to point it out. I assure you that I will be much more meticulous in reviewing every detail of the manuscript to prevent such errors in the future.

Once again, I offer my sincerest apologies for my oversight. Your feedback is extremely valuable to me, and I will continue striving to ensure the manuscript reaches a higher standard of quality. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

I sincerely appreciate your continued support and guidance, and I look forward to your further feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken my recommendations into account, the change in the manuscript is very good, I congratulate them.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken my recommendations into account, the change in the manuscript is very good, I congratulate them.

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We are very pleased to hear that you are satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript, and we deeply appreciate your congratulations. Your recognition and support mean a great deal to us.

Once again, thank you for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work. We truly understand that your comments have played a crucial role in improving the quality of the manuscript. Your encouragement will motivate us to continue striving for excellence in our future work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The manuscript has been revised significantly. The reviewer’s previous comments have been addressed.

I have no more comments.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

The manuscript has been revised significantly. The reviewer’s previous comments have been addressed.

I have no more comments.

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your meticulous review of our manuscript and for acknowledging the significant revisions made. We are truly honored and grateful to hear that the changes have addressed all of the previous comments. Your valuable feedback and suggestions have played a crucial role in improving the quality of the manuscript, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

It is our greatest honor to have fully addressed all of your concerns and received your approval. Once again, thank you for your continued support and encouragement, which will inspire us to strive for excellence in our future research.

We truly value your constructive feedback and appreciate your contribution to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments. It should be ready to publish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for addressing the comments. It should be ready to publish.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments. It should be ready to publish.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for addressing the comments. It should be ready to publish.

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to sincerely thank you for your meticulous review and for acknowledging the changes we made to the manuscript. We are truly honored and grateful to hear that the paper is now considered ready for publication. Your recognition and approval are a great encouragement to us, and we deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this review process.

Thank you once again for your patience in reviewing our responses to all the comments. We truly value your constructive feedback and will continue striving for excellence in our future research.

Once again, thank you for your support and assistance. We look forward to the opportunity to learn from you in the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf