RESPONSE TO REVIEW COMMENTS
Manuscript ID: modelling-2643458
Reviewer # 2
Reviewer’s Comment
The paper presents a numerical study
about perforated steel members under
blast loading. This is the research pre-
sented in [1] and the authors added
some more results about the columns.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S2352012422003125#f0050).
The authors should make clear that their
previous paper investigated the behavior
of perforated steel beams, while the cur-
rent study extends their research to col-
umns.
1) The methodology presented in sec-
tion 2.4 is not adequately described. The
scientific soundness of this section is
low.
2) In Section 2.5 (Damage and Fail-
ure criteria), the authors propose a spe-
cialized damage index. Is this the same
with the one proposed in ref “Numerical
derivation of pressure–impulse diagrams
Author’s Response Location
The authors appreciate the re-
viewer’s comments, thus more
information and discussion of
the blast resistance of perforated
steel members was added.
An explicit analysis was simu-
lated using “LS-Dyna” FEA tool
which become an alternative
economical and safety tool in-
stead of experimental works. In
addition, damage assessments
were addressed and based on dif-
ferent damage criteria to extend
the comparative analysis that
were used in previous work.
all comments provided by the re-
viewer were addressed in the re-
vised manuscript, and a sum-
mary is given below:
Section 2.4 illustrate the blast Section 2.4
loading not just during the direct
blast loading but also takes into
account the residual capacities
under the serviceability loading.
This section was supported sci-
entifically by previous reviewed
researches that as mentioned in
ref. no [24].
Section 2.5 listed some damage Section 5.1
indices that described the resid-
ual capacities according to some
previous studies in addition to
for prediction of RC column damage to
blast loads”?
3) Although the authors are suggest-
ing a new damage index, this index is
not used to describe the results.
4) The results are presented in terms
of toughness. How is toughness is calcu- toughness calculations was ex-
lated? There is no explanation.
5) The paper should focus on the be-
havior of columns. The section “results”
must be revised in order to include the
results concerning the columns and the
appropriate justification. The results
concerning the beams can be omitted.
Alternatively, a new section can be
added to briefly discuss the behavior of
beams.
Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Numer-
ical modeling) are not well written.
Moderate editing of English language is
required. In the other sections minor
editing is needed.
the damage failures of structures
under direct blast shot depend on
the ductility ratio (μ) according
to UFC standards which are used
in the current study at the results
and discussions section.
As reviewers recommended, the Lines 307:313
plained before the results discus-
sions.
As reviewer requested, More -Table 4 and
clarifications and results of col- Figures 15 and
umns and beams were added at 16.
sections 5.1 and5.4 , 5.5 to briefly
discuss the behavior of Perforated
-Section
steel members under different blast 5.2,5.3,5.4 and
scenarios. 5.5
Authors apologize for the errors,
thus more proof-readings were
performed to correct grammar,
spelling and punctuation in the
manuscript.
- A thorough spell-check
was performed to correct other
possible misspellings.