Embedment of Steel Spiral Cases in Concrete: Lessons from a Structural Deformation Accident in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is all clearly laid out. All presented key elements are clear: abstract, introduction, problem description, numerical simulation (including material parameters), results of the research, comprehensive discussion and conclusions.

 

Title clearly describe the content of the article.

 

Abstract in simple way reflects the article content.

 

 

In summary, the article should be publish, because it is sufficiently novel, interesting and within of the Applied Science scope. Moreover presented analysis and conclusions may be useful in future engineering practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper seeks to reveal the cause of a raising deformation accident of SCS in construction period through numerical Abaqus model.

 -Section 3.1.: the numerical model should be more explained. For example, authors stated: “Multiple sets of contact pairs are defined at the interfaces between the SSC and concrete structures”. Authors should specify which contact pairs, i.e., the surfaces that create de pair and what they are representing. Besides, just the friction model is explained. The contact pairs in Abaqus are complex and many underlying models are needed (normal contact, failure criteria…). In addition, many other parts of the model need to be explained: the model of the tie rods, the connection of the tie rods with the spiral, etc. Besides, a sensitivity analysis od the mesh size should be performed.

 -Section 3.2.: the material models should be explained more in detail. It is not clear if just elastic or elastoplastic steel behavior is considered.

 -Section 3.3.: Authors state: “FEA study and in-situ measured data shows that the value of external load reaches 1.8 MPa”. Which FEA authors mean? How were the in-situ measurements made? This information is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

The authors numerically studied the role of some parameters on the failure of a spiral case structure (SCS). Although the topic and some findings are interesting for readers, the manuscript was not well-written and is difficult for readers. More details regarding the accident and configurations of SCS should be provided by the authors. Also, more details about the numerical model should be mentioned in the text. Hence, major revision is necessary as follows:

-          - Page 3, Lines 72-77: Please explain more details regarding this accident such as references, news, damage figures, and failures. References regarding this accident should be provided by the authors.

-          - Page 3, Line 83: Please show a figure of this HPP.

-     - Section 3: Please explain the interaction precisely between the parts in Abaqus.

-          - Page 6, Lines 156-158: Please put a reference for this sentence.

-     - Page 6, Lines 161-162: How did the authors find 1.8 MPa? The authors should explain the details accurately within the manuscript. The loading and boundary conditions were not appropriately determined in the study.

-         - General comment: The authors should perform mesh sensitivity analysis for the numerical model to mention the considered mesh size.  

-            - General comment: How did the researchers measure the in-situ measured data? The authors should mention the references and also the way of gathering empirical databases.

-          - Page 6, Line 153: Which model was used for concrete? Please explain more about the concrete role in the failure of the SCS.

-          - Regarding validation of the Abaqus model, a separate section should be considered by the authors to show the devotion between the numerical model and the experimental database.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed all changes proposed by the reviewer. Therefore, the paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and instructive comments, and we would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

Best regards,

Xiaofeng Gao, Dan Fu and Hegao Wu

Reviewer 3 Report

The author's appropriately improved the structure of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and instructive comments, and we would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

Best regards,

Xiaofeng Gao, Dan Fu and Hegao Wu