Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of L-Shaped CFST Columns in Different Combinations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on the paper submitted to Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309)

Title: Experimental Study on the Seismic Performance of L-shaped CFST Columns in Different Combinations

Manuscript ID: buildings-2616221

General Comments

This experimental paper provides valuable information on the seismic performance of L-shaped CFST columns, including their energy dissipation capability and ductility. The results show that these columns exhibit favorable behavior under constant axial load and cyclic lateral load. The study also investigated the effect of loading direction and cross-sectional dimensions on column response. These findings can help improve the safety and efficiency of steel structures in buildings.

In general, the paper was written in good English. The methods and results are well described.

Based on this, my recommendation is to accept with minor revisions required.

Below, I provide more detailed corrections and suggestions for the authors.

Title: The title summarizes well the paper's content and can be considered adequate.

Abstract: The abstract is well-structured and written as it provides clearly the context, purpose, methods, main results and conclusions. I missed only a sentence highlighting the motivation of the proposed study within the context.

Technical / Editorial comments / Suggestions/Questions to the authors

Line 15: the term “scrutinized” sounds not adequate. Consider using “examined” or “investigated”

Line 22. It sounds that there is some missing word in "Moreover, the arrangement of steel tubes within the column positively influenced seismic performance". Maybe should be "Moreover, the better arrangement of steel tubes within the column positively influenced seismic performance". Consider checking this sentence.

Section 1: Introduction

In general, the Introduction is well-structured as it presents: (i) context, (ii) motivation of the study, (iii) literature review and (iv) purpose. I identified only some minor corrections that should be addressed by the authors.

Technical / Editorial comments / Suggestions/Questions to the authors

General: I missed a Figure sketching the content of the paper in the Introduction. A Figure in this section could be very clarifying about the content of the paper at the beginning.

Line 43-103: The literature review could be shortened to better flow of ideas. Besides that, I suggest placing the literature review before the paragraph on which the authors present the gaps of the literature (motivation of the proposed study). In general, it is recommended provide a better link between the literature review and the motivation of the proposed study.

Section 2 - Materials and Methods

General: This section provides well-structured information about the geometry of the tested models, material properties, and methods applied in the testing. All expressions were well explained and presented in the manuscript. In general, I have only some minor questions/comments to the authors. I identified only minor corrections.

Technical / Editorial comments / Suggestions/Questions to the authors

Line 122-123 - The meaning of all parameters in the Table should be described in the text or in the caption of the Table. For instance, the meaning of b1 and b2 is not clear in the manuscript.

Table 1 – The term “axial compression ratio” should be better defined and explained in the text.

Figure 2 – the measurement units must be informed in the title of the figure.

Table 2 - The symbol of stresses is usually "f_y" and "f_u" and not "F_y" and "F_u". Please, consider using lowercase letters in some symbols.

Line 170-171. Please clarify this sentence. Was the term "expected" based on some analytical method or a preliminary test? Please, clarify which methods was used to determined the value of Δy.

Section 3 – Experimental results

The authors provided very interesting information and description about the conducted tests. In general, the Figures and results were well-prepared and discussed in the paper. I have only some minor corrections and suggestions to this section.

Technical / Editorial comments / Suggestions/Questions to the authors

Line 185 to 186: The authors should indicate more clearly which part from Figure 6 shows the "tears in the welds" and "outward bulging at the bottom of the tube"

Line 242: correct the citation of Figure 8a. "is observed in the hysteresis loops of specimen F-1, as depicted in Figure 8(a)".

General: I would suggest the authors explain in more detail what would be the “pinching effect”. This information may not be clear to less experienced researchers in this field.

Line 274 - Correct the citation of the Table (missing number).

Section 5: Conclusions

The conclusions are supported by the presented methods and results. In general, the conclusions are also valuable for future applications of L-shaped CFST for seismic critical regions.

English writing:

In general, the manuscript was written in good English. Minor revisions on this aspect are required.

Figures and tables.

 

In general, most Figures were well prepared and discussed in the paper. 

In general, the manuscript was written in good English. Minor revisions on this aspect are required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 We appreciate your diligent review of our article. We've taken into account all your comments and questions, and we're pleased to share that the revised version is now available for your consideration.

You can find our detailed responses and revisions in the attached PDF document. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we eagerly await your final assessment.

Thank you for your time and invaluable input.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article describes the results of research that are interesting from the point of view of potential readers - both engineers and researchers. I think that the article could be approved for publication provided that the following comments and answers to the following questions are taken into account:

1. Why do column specimens have such dimensions and not other ones? It's mainly about the height of the columns, which is only 1500 mm. Are these column tests to scale, i.e. is there any assumed proportion of the ratio of the height to the length of the sides of the cross-section? Nothing in the article about it.

2. Lines 170-175: Description is wrong or unclear - "Δy denoting 75% of the anticipated lateral cyclic load-bearing capacity of the L-shaped CFST column." – does not Δy mean displacements?

3. Figure 8e: Wrong graph may have been placed here.

4. Line 274: Table number not given.

5. Figures 9, 10 and 11: I suggest removing the markers in the graphs - this will greatly improve their readability.

6. Figured 9 and 11: KN is not a unit of force - it is kN.

7. Table 3: K.N. it is not a unit of force - it is kN.

8. Table 3: The explanation of the symbols in the header of table 3 is only in section 3.6 - something needs to be done about it.

9. Lines 390-393 in section 4(2): Accuracy of recording results too high. In the technical sciences, we usually use the notation up to 3 significant places - as in line 394 in 4(3).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 We appreciate your diligent review of our article. We've taken into account all your comments and questions, and we're pleased to share that the revised version is now available for your consideration.

You can find our detailed responses and revisions in the attached PDF document. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work, and we eagerly await your final assessment.

Thank you for your time and invaluable input.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded positively to all comments and made appropriate corrections. I think the article can be published in its current form.