A Proposal for a Simple Method for Determining the Concrete Slab Width of Composite Beam-to-Column Joints
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-1408261
A Simple Method for Determining the Concrete Slab Width of Composite joint in Tests
Reviewer comments:
SUMMARY
The manuscript deals with a good study on the effective width of solid concrete slab calculation. It proposes a recommending Equation for calculating the effective width, reflecting the differences of some specifications. Furthermore, this is a topic that has not been widely covered in the literature, therefore, this a subject of great interest, but it is somehow limited in the analysis and application of these results.
MAIN IMPRESSION
This paper has an undeniable practical usefulness.
MORE DETAILED COMMENTS
Lines 18, 61, 542: You should use ”European Union” instead of “European Commission”.
Lines 30 ... 130 ... 398 .... 504: Could you please delete the dot in Figure.1 - Figure.9?
Lines 30 ... 130 ... 398 .... 504: Could you please use the black color when the word Figure is written in the text?
References
References must be listed individually at the end of the manuscript as follows:
- Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
For instance, ref. [1] León, D.; D, Reyes, A.; and Yu, C. Probabilistic assessment of connections for steel buildings on seismic zones. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013; 88, 15-20, is wrong.
It should be: … J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013; 88, 15-20.
RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, Minor changes have been proposed.
Author Response
1. Lines 18, 61, 542: You should use ”European Union” instead of “European Commission”.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors, and we sincerely apologize for our lack of knowledge. We have corrected the errors raised and found by the reviewers, and all changes are highlighted in red.
2. Lines 30 ... 130 ... 398 .... 504: Could you please delete the dot in Figure.1 - Figure.9?
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors; and we have corrected these errors, and all changes are highlighted in red.
3. Lines 30 ... 130 ... 398 .... 504: Could you please use the black color when the word Figure is written in the text?
A: Thank you, reviewer, we have accepted your advice, and all changes are highlighted in red.
4. References
References must be listed individually at the end of the manuscript as follows:
- Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
For instance, ref. [1] León, D.; D, Reyes, A.; and Yu, C. Probabilistic assessment of connections for steel buildings on seismic zones. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2013; 88, 15-20, is wrong.
It should be: … J. Constr. Steel Res. 2013; 88, 15-20.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors; and we have corrected the errors raised and found by the reviewers together, and all changes are highlighted in red.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with a very important civil engineering issue concerning the safe design of steel and concrete composite structures. In particular, the authors focus on the analysis of the correct selection of the effective width of RC slab at the beam’s joint with the column what is inspired by the observations of the specific damage in such joints created during earthquakes when changing the sign of the bending moment. It is worth emphasizing that in the first part of the article, the authors made an interesting and exhaustive comparison of the standard regulations that apply to the selection of the effective width of the slab in Australia/New Zealand, China, Europe, and the United States. However, to accept the wrok for publication, the authors should take into account the editorial comments and respond to the substantive ones given below:
Editorial comments:
1) There are some minor grammatical errors in the text that need to be corrected. For example, the second sentence in the Introduction should be: "Typical failure modes ... are shown in Figure 1."; in point 4.3., the third sentence should be: "... solid concrete ..." instead of "... sloid concrete ...".
2) Figure 2 is too small.
3) Under Table 6, the width 438 mm is given for b.e. However, it cannot be found in Table 6.
Substantive comments:
1) The sentence in the Introduction: "Sometimes, shear connectors and slabs have a strong influence on the mechanical properties of composite joints.", in the context of the considered subject, should rather be: "Sometimes, the shear connectors and slab have a strong influence on the mechanical properties of composite beam-to-column joint."
2) In section 2, the integral formula making b.e dependent on sigma.x and sigma.x,max should be given with reference to Figure 3.
3) The second sentence in section 3.1 should read: “Among others, it replaced the following national standards:…”. EN 1994 replaced the national standards also in many other countries and not only in the United Kingdom.
4) In sections 3.2 and 3.4, figures analogous to those in sections 3.1 and 3.3 should be provided.
5) The scheme of the joints from their numerical models shown in Figure 9 does not exhaust the basic possible cases - such as e.g. for the end-slab joints illustrated in Figure 2. The reviewer understands that in many complex problems of mechanics, such as the one discussed in the article, the research models should be idealized and generalized. However, there are two too different cases in this case. In Figure 2, the slab ends at the border of the steel column flange, and in Figure 9, the slab and its steel reinforcement is continuous over the column support. It is advisable to perform the second series of calculations with the composite beams that ends in their joint with the column and compare the obtained results.
6) The reviewer proposes to change the title of the article to: "A proposal of a Simple Method for Determining the Concrete Slab Width of Composite Beam-to-Column Joint".
Author Response
Editorial comments:
1) There are some minor grammatical errors in the text that need to be corrected. For example, the second sentence in the Introduction should be: "Typical failure modes ... are shown in Figure 1."; in point 4.3., the third sentence should be: "... solid concrete ..." instead of "... sloid concrete ...".
A: Thank you for pointing out so many errors, and we sincerely apologize for our carelessness. We have corrected the errors raised and found by the reviewers together, and all changes are highlighted.
2) Figure 2 is too small.
A: Thank you for pointing out this problem. We have redrawn this diagram to make it bigger and more apparent.
3) Under Table 6, the width 438 mm is given for b.e. However, it cannot be found in Table 6.
A: Thank you for pointing out this data problem, and we sincerely apologize for our carelessness. We have corrected the errors raised and found by the reviewers, and all changes are highlighted in red.
Substantive comments:
1) The sentence in the Introduction: "Sometimes, shear connectors and slabs have a strong influence on the mechanical properties of composite joints.", in the context of the considered subject, should rather be: "Sometimes, the shear connectors and slab have a strong influence on the mechanical properties of composite beam-to-column joint."
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors, and we sincerely apologize for our limited knowledge. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the mistakes, and all changes are highlighted in red.
2) In section 2, the integral formula making b.e dependent on sigma.x and sigma.x,max should be given with reference to Figure 3.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors, and we sincerely apologize for our carelessness in organizing the article structure. We have added Equations (1) and (5) and modified the numbers of all Equations in the context and Tables accordingly. All changes are highlighted in red.
3) The second sentence in section 3.1 should read: “Among others, it replaced the following national standards:…”. EN 1994 replaced the national standards also in many other countries and not only in the United Kingdom.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for pointing out so many errors, and we sincerely apologize for our limited knowledge. We have corrected the errors raised and found by the reviewers together, and all changes are highlighted.
4) In sections 3.2 and 3.4, figures analogous to those in sections 3.1 and 3.3 should be provided.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for this helpful suggestion. AS/NZS 2327:2017 uses the same diagram as EN1994-1-1 (Figure 4), so the text description is added in section 3.2, highlighted in red font. However, the ANSI/AISC 341-16 specification only has text descriptions and no corresponding diagrams.
5) The scheme of the joints from their numerical models shown in Figure 9 does not exhaust the basic possible cases - such as e.g. for the end-slab joints illustrated in Figure 2. The reviewer understands that in many complex problems of mechanics, such as the one discussed in the article, the research models should be idealized and generalized. However, there are two too different cases in this case. In Figure 2, the slab ends at the border of the steel column flange, and in Figure 9, the slab and its steel reinforcement is continuous over the column support. It is advisable to perform the second series of calculations with the composite beams that ends in their joint with the column and compare the obtained results.
A: Thank you, reviewer, for asking such a very professional and insightful question. In many documents cited in the paper, the T-shaped joint pointed out by the reviewer is mainly used as the research object, whether in the experiment or finite element analysis. This is primarily to consider the test cost and calculation efficiency. Because the composite floor slabs are connected to the steel beams by welded studs at their ends, they belong to composite slabs with end anchorage according to EN1994-1-1. Under the condition of using the beam's free end to load, their force performance is the same as that of the continuous joints of the floor. Therefore, the research conclusions of these documents are also accepted and applied to the continuous floor composite joint. Based on this, the paper added a final paragraph in Section 6.2 to illustrate this problem, and at the same time, added a guide to the position of the beam end section in Figure 9.
6) The reviewer proposes to change the title of the article to: "A proposal of a Simple Method for Determining the Concrete Slab Width of Composite Beam-to-Column Joint".
A: Thank you, reviewer, we have accepted your advice and all changes are highlighted.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I agree to publish the article.
