Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper discusses a statistical procedure to estimate the standard strengths of Moso bamboo, regarded as a structural material, with given or determined reliability; in particular, the authors claim for an application on the semi-brittle failure in bending. A large number of tests under several loading condition are considered.

The crucial step of the adopted method is not sufficiently detailed, so that it can appear to be not too comprehensible for the typical engineer. Please consider to add a brief Appendix to sketch the underlying theory.

The paper can be considered appropriate for publication, with some revisions.

Major remarks

1. [e.g., line 14, line 80-85] “A method for calculating the target reliability index of bending strength was proposed.” The method is not detailed in both its theoretical assumptions and operative stages; in particular it is not make evident the role the loading combinations play in the obtained results (without reference to a specific structural typology).
2. [§ 2.7, page 5] The Reliability analysis is based on Eqs. (14-15), referring to a Chinese standard, GGB50005 [21]. Similarly, Reliability indexes (§3.3) refer to [21] and another paper [22] difficult to reach.

Consequently, the crucial points of the paper remains rather obscure! Finally, at Line 287 “linear interpolation method” is unreferenced. The same thing for Eq. (17)

3. [Lines 292-ff] No explicit references, nor a summary of the applied theory, can be found regarding the loading combinations influence the reliability index.
4. In the Abstract seems to be unnecessary to report the all the numerical value of the standard and design strengths, in view of the fact that these results refer to a particular species of bamboo. The emphasis should be put on the method (assumption, critical remarks, etc.).
5. [Lines 254-ff] “… compression strength perpendicular to the grain of bamboo material display obvious ductility failure characteristics”. The ductility of the bamboo material in compression is questionable, in my opinion. In fact, the macroscopic behavior appearing in Fig. 3(a)-UCS is the result of an extraordinary complex sequence of events (crushing, local instability, global instability, longitudinal splitting, etc.) so that it is improper to declare ductile the compressed bamboo. An indirect proof of this remark is the huge spread of the UCS+CCS tests ductility, shown in Fig. 5; on the contrary, the tension tests show a frank brittle response.
   A discussion of the point should be appreciated.
6. [1. Introduction.] There are a number of international important papers and books on bamboo design and mechanical characterization not quoted.
7. Title should be more incisive. Please, consider to cancel “Research on the” and insert few keyword suggesting the adopted method.

Minor remarks

8. The part of the culm (top or bottom) the specimens are obtained from seems to be not specified.
9. [Fig. 1] It is not clear how the sample is prepared for the CCS test.
10. In Eq. (3) the minus sign is missing.
11. [Line 126] “… moisture content has a significant effect …”. Please insert recent papers on the subject.
12. [Table 1]. Please consider to substitute the symbol “a” with “mean”.
13. Histograms in Fig. 2 seem to be unnecessary.

14 Term “coupon(s)” seems to be inappropriate or useless.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks to the experts for your valuable opinions, which have played an important role in the improvement of this paper.  Please refer to the attachment for detailed replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good paper. However, I would like to know more about the effect of the time effect issues ( Creep and shrinkage ) on the performance of the structure. This is what I would like to suggest to allocate a separate on evaluating the influence of the creep and shrinkage.

Author Response

Thanks to the experts for your valuable opinions, which have played an important role in the improvement of this paper.  Please refer to the attachment for detailed replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents the results of an extensive testing campaign to measure the mechanical properties of P. edulis bamboo material. It is suitable for publication but I invite the authors to consider the following points.

1. Introduction. The introduction does not end with a clear statement of the objectives of this work. The work done is described but not the rationale. Why have you done this research work?
2. Figure 1. Define the acronyms UCS, MOR, etc.... It can be done in the figure caption. This comment applies to other figures as well;
3. Give references for equations 1 to 15. Where do they come from?
4. Table 1. Define acronyms.
5. Figures 6, 7 and 8. Define β and γ_R.
6. Table 4. Where is defined the resistance factor ρ? 
7. The discussion section is written as a conclusion and there is no conclusion in the article. This has to be fixed.

Author Response

Thanks to the experts for your valuable opinions, which have played an important role in the improvement of this paper.  Please refer to the attachment for detailed replies.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved inserting some References on the methodology (some of which are in Chinese).

However,

1. A brief review of the Reliability Theory adopted is still lacking (decreasing the attractiveness of the paper!).
2. The considerations the Authors kindly provided in the response to the Reviewers should be (partially) inserted in the paper! On the contrary, the raised remarks will not be useful to the reader.

[In my humble opinion, the ductility appearing in the compressive test should be applied with great caution in reliability analysis of the bamboo, considered as a material; further study on compressed bamboo structural members could be illuminating]

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your time and effort during the review process! We have uploaded the second modified reply letter to the attachment. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors made significant improvements to the manuscript. They answered appropriately to most of my comments. However, the definition of the acronyms I asked for Table 1 was not done. I still believe that this is important. The reader should be able to understand a table or a figure without referring to the text. My comments in this regard are along those lines. Even if the definition of an acronym is repeated in several figures and tables, I don't see it as a problem. Therefore, I ask the authors to reconsider this point.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your time and effort during the review process! We have uploaded the second modified reply letter to the attachment. Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx