Study on the Fire Resistance of Axially Restrained H-Shaped Steel Beams Under Real Fire

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates the fire resistance of axially restrained H-shaped steel beams under realistic fire scenarios. The study employs Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) to simulate temperature fields and couples these results with Abaqus finite element analysis to predict the critical temperature and failure behavior of Q460 steel beams. A new simplified formula for critical temperature prediction is proposed and validated against simulation results.
Comments:

1. The abstract does not include any quantitative outcomes or clear results.
2. Some sentences in the abstract are too long.
3. The abstracts need to be improved.
4. Add at least one or two more keywords
5. The discussion lacks depth and does not compare findings or critically analyze gaps in existing research.
6. Scope and Objectives Need a Clear Statement.
7. A convergence study, including mesh sensitivity analysis, should be added.
8. The section presents only one validation case, which is insufficient; additional validation against experimental or real fire data is recommended.
9. The validation lacks quantitative discussion and percent differences should be added.
10. Overall, the paper lacks quantitative analysis.
11. Each main heading should include at least one introductory sentence before moving to subheadings.
12. There is little discussion of the limitations of the FDS.
13. The rationale for choosing a mesh size equal to 1/10 of the steel beam width is not provided. If mesh sensitivity analysis was performed, it should be included
14. In Section 3.1.4, “n” should be corrected to “In.”
15. All figures and curves should be labeled in English; currently, some use a different language, which is not acceptable for an international journal.
16. nly one validation case is presented for the Abaqus model; additional validation cases are needed.
17. Add brief explanations or transitions between equations.
18. There is no discussion of the formula’s limitations (e.g., its applicability to other steel grades, cross-sections, or boundary conditions).
19. The conclusion restates general claims but does not highlight any specific quantitative results or key outcomes from the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs careful English language editing for clarity and readability. Some sentences are too long, and all figures and captions should be labeled in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After reviewing the manuscript, I have the following suggestions:

1. In the introduction (line 40), please provide a reference for Cardington
2. In the final paragraph of the introduction, the motivation for this study should be stated more explicitly
3. The units of physical quantities should be written in accordance with standard conventions throughout the paper
4. The doors and windows at the fire location were designed to remain open to ensure complete combustion. This may not always be the case in reality—please comment on this
5. Provide a physical explanation of Figure 2
6. The statement (line 216) should be supported with references
7. Provide a physical explanation for the sudden temperature rise at t = 600 s (Figure 2. CL.1)
8. For thermophysical properties, the unit K is commonly used instead of °C (see Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.)
9. In line 281, the citation “Xing et al.” should include the reference number
10. Check the numbering of figures and ensure consistency with the text
11. Provide a reference to an experimental study for verification (Section 3.1.4)
12. The titles of Sections 3.2 and 3.2.1 are identical—please verify
13. In line 399, after “Wang et al.” add the reference number
14. In equation (4-1), specify the units of T
15. Equations (4-1) and (4-2) are essentially the same but written in different forms. Why is T used in one and Tcr in the other?
16. Provide references for equations (4-4) and (4-5)
17. Check the labels on the figures
18. The abstract states that this study provides a basic for fire protection design throughout the entire course off the fire. However, the conclusion does not mention this aspect at all. Please ensure consistency between the abstract and the conclusion
19. Check citation formatting, for example: [25] line 527, [10] line 501, [5] line 491.

I wish you success in your future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly addressed all of my previous comments. The revisions have improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript. I have no further suggestions at this time. The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.