Numerical Study on the Seismic Behavior of Steel–Concrete Composite Frame with Uplift-Restricted and Slip-Permitted (URSP) Connectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a numerical study on the seismic behavior of steel-concrete composite frame with uplift-restricted and slip-permitted (URSP) connectors. The influence of key design parameters on seismic behavior is scrutinized. Leveraging prior tests on composite frames with URSP connectors carried out by the authors’ group, a sophisticated three-dimensional FEM model is crafted. The fidelity of the FEM model is validated through a juxtaposition of numerical and test outcomes, assessing strain distribution, damage patterns, and load-displacement curves. Based on this numerical model, the study probes the effects of three pivotal design parameters: the arrangement length of URSP connectors, flange thickness, and the height of the steel beam on seismic resilience. To conclude, recommended parameter ranges for the optimal design are proposed.

This study provides novel and important results. In addition, it is well organized. Meanwhile, the authors should consider the following issues: 

-There is a marked revised paper which is attached below. It provides some required revisions and comments. The authors should complete these revisions. The addition of the following recent benchmark studies can help to enrich the References part: 

1-"Development of a uniform seismic vulnerability index framework for reinforced concrete building typology." Journal of Building Engineering. 2022; Volume 47:103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103838

2-"Improved vulnerability index methodology to quantify seismic risk and loss assessment in reinforced concrete buildings". Journal of Earthquake Engineering. 2022 Sep 10;26(12):6172-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2021.1911888 

Overall, this paper can be accepted for publication after the completion of required revisions described above. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A re-review of the manuscript is required.

 

1) At the end of Abstract (lines 21-24), it is suggested to better specify and highlight (in a very synthetic way) some noteworthy results obtained in the study.

 

2) At the end of Introduction, it is suggested to better highlight the advancements provided by this numerical study with respect to the experimental tests described in reference [21].

 

3) Considering the topic addressed in this study, in Introduction it is required to mention and discuss the following two references based on experimental and numerical studies dealing with the effects of partial interaction and slip between steel beam and concrete slab on the seismic behavior of steel-concrete composite frames and beam-to-column joints:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2009.05.001

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.01.034

 

4) Section 2.1.1. The use of shell elements (instead of solid elements) to model the steel column and beams should be better justified.

 

5) Section 2.1.3. (Lines 180-181). It is suggested to shortly explain the uniaxial hysteretic rule adopted for steel and based on the research conducted by Tao (the reference is in Chinese language). Moreover, the reference is 26 (not 27).

 

6) Section 2.1.3 (Lines 185-186). A more comprehensive explanation of the parameters of the CDP model should be provided. (The reference is 27, not 28).

 

7) Section 2.1.3 (Lines 188-190). It is suggested to shortly explain the uniaxial stress-strain relation adopted for the concrete in CSFT column and based on Han’s findings (the reference is in Chinese language). Moreover, the reference is 28 (not 27).

 

8) Section 2.1.6. It is suggested to shortly describe and justify the loading protocol adopted and shown in Fig. 8.

 

9) Section 2.2. Better justify the following sentence: “The stress state and distribution align well with the experimental results.”

 

10) The numerical results obtained in this study are provided in terms of DAMAGET variable (Figs. 10, 13, 16, 19). A comprehensive explanation of such variable should be inserted in the text.

 

11) Conclusions should be enriched and improved, better highlighting the main novelty aspects of the study.

 

12) Some short recommendations for future works should be included at the end of Conclusions.

 

13) A general revision of the text should be carried out to improve the quality of English language.

13) A general revision of the text should be carried out to improve the quality of English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer.

The revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.