Evaluating the Combustion Performance of the Usual Timbers in Furniture Using a Grey Correlation Method Based on Thermolysis, Ignition, and Flame Spread

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examined the combustion performance of six common furniture timber types. Various tests were conducted to evaluate ignition, weight loss, thermogenesis, smoke production, and flame spread. A comprehensive index system was developed for assessment, aided by a gray correlation method based on game theory. Results ranked the timber types in terms of combustion performance: pine > Chinese fir > Oriented Strandboard (OSB) > density board > plywood > elm. 

The paper is nicely written and has sufficient novelty to be considered for publication. However, this reviewer believes some issues need to be addressed prior to taking any decision on the manuscript. Comments are:

1. The abstract lacks of the relevant information related to temperature range considered. How might the application of Bayesian inference techniques enhance the accuracy and reliability of the proposed gray correlation method for assigning weights to evaluation indexes in timber combustion performance analysis?

2. The introduction section is too weak and no deep discussion could be found related to current design codal provisions. In the review of literature, the latest development should be highlighted rather than piling up the paper. :- Structures, Elsevier, 31, pp. 428-461, DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.102. Advances in Structural Engineering, SAGE, 19(8): 1193-1223

3. It is unclear to this reviewer, what design parameter the authors made constant or uniform while doing the comparison.

4. The methodology adopted and the mechanims behind it must be clearly highlighted in the manuscript.

5. Discuss the implications of the activation energy results obtained from the Coats-Redfern method for each timber sample. How do these activation energies correlate with the thermal stability of the timber, and what practical implications do they have for furniture manufacturing and fire prevention measures?

6. Add proper citations to the equations presented in the manuscript.

7. Lastly, must add recommendations that derive from your analysis...

Author Response

We have uploaded the responses to the reviewers' comments in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

your manuscript presents interesting results regarding the combustion of different types of timbers. However, there are some shortcomings that have to be addressed in order to publish the manuscript. In what follows, I suggestions to improve the manuscript.

 

Abstract

·         Please explain what do the numbers in parentheses in lines 22-23, page 1, mean.

·         Please state your suggestions referred to in lines 24-26, page 1.

 

Introduction

·         The introduction is well structured. However, after reading the manuscript, it becomes clear that the evaluation methods presented in section 3.2.2 are a key part of your manuscript. Therefore, I suggest, that you also add some relevant background on these methods in the introduction.

 

Material and experiments

·         Please describe how the density and the mass of the specimens presented in Table 1 are determined.

·         Page 4, line 131: Please state what was the frequency of data acquisition by a digital camera and what criteria were used to determine flame spread.

 

Results and discussion

·         It is now not very clear what results are obtained from what experiment described in section 2.2. Therefore, I suggest that you describe what results are obtained in each experiment in section 2.2 and use the same terminology throughout the manuscript.

·         Page 4, line 144: It needs to be explained how could water evaporate if it is stated on page 3, line 96 that the specimens were oven-dried (103^oC), which causes that all water evaporates at drying prior to performing experiments.

·         Figure 3: I suggest that the measured quantities are stated in the axis names and the figure caption, e.g., mass loss and mass loss rate instead of TG and DTG, and that the terminology is unified throughout the manuscript: e.g. is it maximum weight loss rate (page 4, line 147) or the mass loss rate (page 4, line 151)?

·         Page 4, lines 151-153: Do the given percentages show total mass lost or the total mass loss rate? Please describe how are they determined from Figure 3b.

·         Page 5, lines 157-163: The statement ‘… the activation energy of pine was higher than other timbers, appropriate for furniture.’ is not in agreement with the results of activation energy given in lines 158-159.

·         Page 5, lines 171-172: The following sentence has no meaning and has to be corrected based on showed results: ‘with a subsequent increase in temperature, the presence of carbon layer led 171 the rate of heat release reduced.’

·         Page 6, lines 176-178: It has to be described how were the indices shown in Table 2 calculated.

·         Page 6, lines 186-187: The meaning of the abbreviation SPR has to be explained.

·         Table 3, page 7, line 206: The meaning of the abbreviation SP has to be explained. It also has to be explained how were the quantities shown in Table 3 determined.

·         From the section 3.1.3 onwards the grammar, the structure and the quality of the text have to be improved.

o   For instance, there is no unit on the ordinate axis in Figure 6. The terminology is also not unified in the figure, its caption and the text.

o   The analysis presented in section 3.1.4 has to be thoroughly described in separate section named Methods, which should be presented in the manuscript before the section Results and discussion.

o   Section 3.2 needs more relation to the previous sections of the manuscript by usage of the same symbols for the same quantities.

o   The presentation of the methods in section 3.2.2 should be moved to the section Methods (comment above). It is not appropriate place in the manuscript to present applied methods in section Results and discussion – this should be done earlier in the structure of the manuscript.

o   The meaning of all symbols presented in equations (1)-(11) has to be clearly explained.

o   Use the symbols from the equations in the headings of Tables 4, 5 and 6.

o   The results presented in Section 3.2 need to be more clearly explained. What exactly was established from them? What is their meaning? What is the meaning of the obtained values?

 

Conclusion

·         The conclusion lacks of the critical judgement of the obtained results.

·         What suggestions can be given based on the obtained results?

·         A comparison of the obtained results to the similar reports in the literature should be given.

 

Appendix A

·         It should be explained in the manuscript what is shown in the appendix. A reference to the appendix should be made at the appropriate place in the manuscript.

 

 

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language is good. Minor improvements of the grammar are needed from the section 3.1.3 onwards. 

Author Response

We have uploaded the responses to the reviewers' comments in the attachment, please check it.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided satisfactory responses to the previous comments, therefore this reviewer recommends the paper for publication in this journal.