Non-Linear Numerical Modelling of Sustainable Advanced Composite Columns Made from Bamboo Culms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments:

P 5., L 221-243. Graphical visualization of static Riks method and Newton-Raphson method could be provided for better understating the similarities and differences of these methods.

P. 13. L. 487. Label FCO-EPX-I can't be found in Figure 8b. 

It is not clear why so many Load-deformation curves are presented in Figure 8b if just one is compared with numerical modelling results. Additionally, it is not explained the meaning of marking of tested specimens.

Author Response

The authors want to thank Reviewer 1 for valuable feedback that was carefully considered by the authors and was addressed in the manuscript as follows:

P 5., L 221-243. Graphical visualization of static Riks method and Newton-Raphson method could be provided for better understating the similarities and differences of these methods.

A new figure was added to the text on page 6 to illustrate a graphical visualization of the static Riks method and Newton-Raphson method and their similarities and differences.

P. 13. L. 487. Label FCO-EPX-I can't be found in Figure 8b. 

The label is now corrected to FCB-EPX-I. Thanks.

It is not clear why so many Load-deformation curves are presented in Figure 8b if just one is compared with numerical modelling results. Additionally, it is not explained the meaning of marking of tested specimens.

The authors agree with the reviewer. The additional curves from Mofidi et al. [3] are removed now. Only the curve correspond to the modelled specimen in this article is shown in Fig 8b.

Reviewer 2 Report

constrmater-1399969

The paper reports on the FE models of previous experiments performed by one of the author. The paper is interesting, well written and provides sufficient details on the strategies adopted. I have only few suggestions to improve the quality of the paper:

• The abstract is very generic and provides obvious objectives and conclusions. Moreover, the context of the work is completely missing.
• The introduction subsection subdivisions is to be checked. I recommend to add a photo of the specimen in sec 1.2 (e.g. fig. 5).
• The literature review is interesting yet extremely long. I suggest to adopt a more concise rephrasing, and reduce in particular the sec. 2.2 since it reports known concepts. Bamboo culms and proportions have been studied by other researchers and has inspired a lot of research works on biomimetics in architecture, please consider to expand the literature review to include bamboo-biomimetics.
• A small recap of the main results of the experiments performed by Mofidi et al. could be useful in order to make the paper less dependent from a previous one.
• The experiment FCB-EPX-I only is modelled: what is the general validity of the FE method here proposed? Please consider to remove the other curves in fig. 8b?

Author Response

Note: The reviewer comments are in Italic.

The authors' answers are in bold.

-------------------------------------------------------

The paper reports on the FE models of previous experiments performed by one of the author. The paper is interesting, well written and provides sufficient details on the strategies adopted. I have only few suggestions to improve the quality of the paper:

The authors want to thank Reviewer 2 for the valuable comments provided. The comments have been considered and addressed carefully by the authors as follows.

• The abstract is very generic and provides obvious objectives and conclusions. Moreover, the context of the work is completely missing.
• As suggested by the reviewer, the abstract was amended to remove the obvious objectives and conclusions from the text. 
• The introduction subsection subdivisions is to be checked. I recommend to add a photo of the specimen in sec 1.2 (e.g. fig. 5).

• "Environmental Benefits and Sustainability of Bamboo" subdivision is now number 1.1.1, whereas it was mistakenly numbered 1.2.1. Thanks.

• Figure 5 (now Figure 1) is moved to section 1.2 as suggested by the reviewer.
• The literature review is interesting yet extremely long. I suggest to adopt a more concise rephrasing, and reduce in particular the sec. 2.2 since it reports known concepts.
• Sub-sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 are now reduced in size significantly. Around 10 lines, that could have been considered broadly reported concepts, are removed now.
• Bamboo culms and proportions have been studied by other researchers and has inspired a lot of research works on biomimetics in architecture, please consider to expand the literature review to include bamboo-biomimetics.
• The authors very much thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. Reference 15 is now added to the literature review on P4, L195-198.
• A small recap of the main results of the experiments performed by Mofidi et al. could be useful in order to make the paper less dependent from a previous one.
• Table 1 is now added to the manuscript on Page 5 that includes the experimental data corresponding to the control specimen and FBC-EPX-I specimen from Mofidi et al. [3].
• The experiment FCB-EPX-I only is modelled: what is the general validity of the FE method here proposed? Please consider to remove the other curves in fig. 8b?
• The authors agree with the reviewer regarding the limited number of the modelled specimens. This model will be used by our team to prepare the more extensive experimental testing phase following the pilot test published in Mofidi et al. [3]. By using this model, we will have a better understanding of the behaviour of the experimental specimen, even before their manufacture and testing. However, at the moment, the number of specimens is limited.
• As suggested by the reviewer, the other curves that were not related to the model specimens are now removed.