Experimental and Numerical Study on the Flexural Behavior of Cold-Formed Steel Multi-Limb Built-Up Section Beams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments
This paper studied flexural behaviour of cold-formed steel beams. While the outcome of the paper is intriguing, it needs to be improved in several areas. The reviewer can only recommend for publication if the author satisfactorily address the following major comments in the revised version.
1. The failure criteria of the FE model should be discussed clearly.
2. The research questions and justification of selecting variable parameters should be highlighted.
3. Which test standards was considered in this study? How many replicate samples were tested in each category?
4. The failure mechanism of the specimen should be discussed more clearly.
5. The novelty of the study should be highlighted more clearly at the end of introduction section. How this study is different from the published study in literature?
6. How the outcome of this study will benefit researchers and end users? This need to be highlighted in introduction or end of conclusion.
7. The flexural behaviour of structural member is interesting but not fully novel. Therefore, the recent study in this area should be discussed in introduction section to improve the background information. Recently, the flexural behaviour was studied for beam [Ref: Flexural and shear behaviour of layered sandwich beams] and slab [Ref: Flexural behaviour of concrete slabs reinforced with GFRP bars and hollow composite reinforcing systems]. Suggest to include them in introduction section with proper citations to improve the background study.
I would be happy to see the revised version to understand how these comments are being addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article describes research on the flexural moment capacities and failure modes of two types of four-limb built-up CFS section beams.
There is a lack of correct information flow. The article is difficult to read, and subsequent text passages do not follow previous ones. In the reviewer's opinion, it would have been easier to read the text if the IMRAD-style structure had been preserved for the entire article, rather than broken into chapters.
The quality of the drawings and illustrations is incorrect, and in this form, they contribute little information to the text, for example, Fig. 1 lacks descriptions of the cross-sectional elements of the structure, and the thickness of the cross-sectional and descriptive lines are not marked correctly, cross-sections are not labelled using the abbreviations introduced earlier in the article. Figures 3 and 5 use a font that is too small, and in places, the text overlaps.
Figure 8 presents the FEM analysis results which have not been introduced earlier in the text.
There is no consistency in the use of the introduced abbreviations and full expressions.
Table 4 should be introduced earlier in the text (where it is referenced) and analyzed after the data presentation.
Despite the inadequate presentation of the data, I find the results of the analyses interesting and worth publishing after improving the quality and readability of the draft article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have no further comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind encouragement and the constructive comments on our manuscript
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Since my earlier comments have been corrected in the text or clarified, in my opinion the article can be published in Buildings.
Before publication, I recommend that the text undergo stylistic editing to improve its flow and readability.
Yours Sincerelly,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your kind encouragement and the constructive comments on our manuscript. I have made moderate changes to the English language and style.
