Reinforced Effect on Brick Wall Using Timber Wall as a Retrofitting Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is a lot of work done in the presented article, but the overall impression is that the topic and the results could be presented with more clarity and simplicity. Maybe that is also the consequence of not entirely clear English language-native English speaker should review the text. 

Some corrections/errors found in the text:

Figure 1: Compession, Compression

Table 2: It should be reffered in the text how G was calculated

Line 184/185: two displacement measures, two inductive displacement sensors

Line 185: set, calculated

Figure 4: Compession, Compression

Line 205: and the bolt was, which was

Line 212/213: reformulate English

Line 219: masoning, building

Line 222: masoned, built

Line 218-234: Text should be written in Past tense

Line 231-237: How many anchors and in what arrangement were used?

Line 254-255: Sequence of words

Line 274-276: In Figure 6, 5 kN Loads (Fig. 6)

Line 314: have, had

Line 329: influenced, was the reason for/caused?

Line 338: Fig. 8 should be reffered to in the text before Fig. 9

Line 340-341: Not clear

Line 350-352: Not clear

Line 354: simplicities, simplifications?

Line 402-405 and Fig. 10a: Why "A" point is not shown in Fig 10a?

Figure 13: Denotation of Po on Fig. 13, What about vertical loads (precompression load and self weigth)?

Line 584: diagnostic, the type of?

Line 729-730: rocking failure to the flexural resistance, rocking mode due to achieved flexural resistance

Line 730: perdition?

Line 741: than the, compared to

Line 742: results in, matching in results by

 

Author Response

Review response to Dear REVIEWER – 2

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing our research. We respect your comments and suggestions. We explained our response to each comment.

Comment 1:

There is a lot of work done in the presented article, but the overall impression is that the topic and the results could be presented with more clarity and simplicity. Maybe that is also the consequence of not entirely clear English language-native English speaker should review the text. 

Authors response 1:

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We think topic is appropriate for our case.  The results presented more clarity and simplicity in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:

Some corrections/errors found in the text:

Figure 1: Compession, Compression

Authors response 2:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “Compression” in Figure 1.

Comment 3:

Table 2: It should be reffered in the text how G was calculated

Authors response 3:

Thank you very much for your comment. G is calculated from ratio between shear strength and shear strain obtained from the single shear test. Line 174-176

Comment 4:

Line 184/185: two displacement measures, two inductive displacement sensors

Authors response 4:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “two inductive displacement sensors” in Line 189.

Comment 5:

Line 185: set, calculated

Authors response 5:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “calculated” in Line 190.

Comment 6:

Figure 4: Compession, Compression

Authors response 6:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “Compression” in Figure 4.

Comment 7:

Line 205: and the bolt was, which was

Authors response 7:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “which was” in Line 210.

Comment 8:

Line 212/213: reformulate English

Authors response 8:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Reinforced brick wall with timber wall is BW-T, and Reinforced brick wall with timber including the hold-down anchor is BW-TA in Line 217-218.

Comment 9:

Line 219: masoning, building

Authors response 9:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “building” in Line 225.

Comment 10:

Line 222: masoned, built

Authors response 10:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “built” in Line 228-228.

Comment 11:

Line 218-234: Text should be written in Past tense

Authors response 11:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Text was written in Past tense in Line 234-258.

Comment 12:

Line 231-237: How many anchors and in what arrangement were used?

Authors response 12:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Twelve anchors are placed, with 4 in vertical and 3 in horizontal directions, respectively. Line 241-242.

Comment 13:

Line 254-255: Sequence of words

Authors response 13:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “To avoid the rocking failure shown in Figure 5j,k and I, two hold-down bolts were installed on both sides of the timber frame.” Line 261-262.

Comment 14:

Line 274-276: In Figure 6, 5 kN Loads (Fig. 6)

Authors response 14:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Included in Line 281-283.

Comment 15:

Line 314: have, had

Authors response 15:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Included in Line 320.

Comment 16:

Line 329: influenced, was the reason for/caused?

Authors response 16:

            Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentences: “According to the study [13], mortar stiffness was the reason for the small modulus of elasticity.” Line 335-336.

Comment 17:

Line 338: Fig. 8 should be reffered to in the text before Fig. 9

Authors response 17:

            Thank you very much for your comment. The explanation of Figure 9 was moved after Figure 8. Line 374-378.

Comment 18:

Line 340-341: Not clear

Authors response 18:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentences: “As shown in Figure 9, the direction in which the oil jack pushes to the wall specimen indicated the positive loading, whereas wall specimen was pulled in negative loading.” Line 376-378.

Comment 19:

Line 350-352: Not clear

Authors response 19:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentences:” When the rotation deformation occurs in the wall, it is assumed that the vertical rotational angle is equal to the horizontal rotational angle.” Line 355-357.

Comment 20:

Line 354: simplicities, simplifications?

Authors response 20:

Thank you very much for your comment. Yes “simplifications”. Line 358

Comment 21:

Line 402-405 and Fig. 10a: Why "A" point is not shown in Fig 10a?

Authors response 21:

Thank you very much for your comment. Failure photo of the “A” point did not show in Fig.10a and failure scheme at “A” point presents in Fig.10a. The failure photo at the “A” point was almost identical to the undamaged wall. The initial vertical displacement was small. Therefore, we did not show the failure photo at “A” point. Line 405-414

Comment 22:

Figure 13: Denotation of Po on Fig. 13, What about vertical loads (precompression load and self weigth)?

Authors response 22:

Thank you very much for your comment. In that case, BW-TA wall includes pre-compression load, brick wall, timber part and hold-down bolt. Total horizontal load of BW-TA wall is indicated by “P₁”. It is assumed the load Po is calculated by subtracting the horizontal load created from the tension of the hold-down bolt. Line 509-512

Comment 23:

Line 584: diagnostic, the type of?

Authors response 23:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence:” The formula (2) in Table 10 is used to forecast the type of failure.” Line 576.

Comment 24:

Line 729-730: rocking failure to the flexural resistance, rocking mode due to achieved flexural resistance

Authors response 24:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “Because of the modest pre-compression load, the BW and BW-T walls failed in the rocking mode due to achieved flexural resistance.” Line 722-723.

Comment 25:

Line 730: perdition?

Authors response 25:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “Prediction” in Line 723.

Comment 26:

Line 741: than the, compared to

Authors response 26:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “compared to” in Line 734.

Comment 27:

Line 742: results in, matching in results by

Authors response 27:

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “matching in results by” in Line 735.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The revised paper analyses the use of timber to improve the in-plane shear strength under cyclic horizontal load by the retrofitting method of the single-leaf brick masonry wall. Besides, the paper proposes an analytical method that was compared with the experimental wall results. 

The introduction provides sufficient background and includes relevant references to the research. The research design is appropriate, but the authors could improve the description of some methods. On the other hand, the results are clearly presented, supporting the conclusions. However, it is necessary to explain better some results.

Specific comments:

1) Section 1, page 3, lines 104-116: The authors only mention that their research is a continuation of previous work. It would be ideal to emphasize even more what is the originality and novelty associated with this research concerning other works. 

2) Section 2.2, page 5, lines 170-176: For clarity, the paragraph between the above lines should be placed before Figure 3. 

3) Section 2.6, page 9, lines 312-318: It would be ideal to indicate whether the displacement protocol applied to the walls was defined according to some standard or arbitrarily defined by the authors.

4) Section 3, page 11, lines 326-333: It would be ideal to explain why elastic modulus obtained from the pre-compression stresses was so different from the elastic modulus obtained in the compression tests of masonry prisms (Table 8 vs. Table 3).

5) Section 4.2, page 23, Figure 19: It would be ideal for explaining how the predicted yield and ultimate displacements were obtained. In addition, it would be advisable to show the above displacements in Table 14. Finally, I recommend further discussion as to why the displacements, as mentioned earlier, were so different in the tests concerning the analytical predictions. 

6) Section 5, page 24, line 730: The word "perdition" should be changed to the word "prediction".

I recommend the publication of this paper after the minor revisions mentioned above are included.

Author Response

Review response to Dear REVIEWER – 3

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing our research. We respect your comments and suggestions. We explained our response to each comment.

General comment 1:

The revised paper analyses the use of timber to improve the in-plane shear strength under cyclic horizontal load by the retrofitting method of the single-leaf brick masonry wall. Besides, the paper proposes an analytical method that was compared with the experimental wall results.  

Authors response 1.

Thank you very much for your comment.

General comment 2:

The introduction provides sufficient background and includes relevant references to the research. The research design is appropriate, but the authors could improve the description of some methods. On the other hand, the results are clearly presented, supporting the conclusions. However, it is necessary to explain better some results.

Authors response 2.

Thank you very much for your advice on how to improve our research. The revised manuscript included and explained more clarifying results.       

Specific comments 3:

Section 1, page 3, lines 104-116: The authors only mention that their research is a continuation of previous work. It would be ideal to emphasize even more what is the originality and novelty associated with this research concerning other works. 

Authors response 3.

Thank you very much for your comment. Advantage of our retrofitting technique is compared with other research, local and lightweight material, easy assembling, and masonry-to-timber connection is high stiffness. Line 104-117.

Specific comments 4:

Section 2.2, page 5, lines 170-176: For clarity, the paragraph between the above lines should be placed before Figure 3. 

Authors response 4.

Thank you very much for your comment. The paragraph was moved to Line 167-176.

Specific comments 5:

Section 2.6, page 9, lines 312-318: It would be ideal to indicate whether the displacement protocol applied to the walls was defined according to some standard or arbitrarily defined by the authors.

Authors response 5.

Thank you very much for your comment. The displacement protocol was arbitrarily defined by the authors. Line 322.

Specific comments 6:

Section 3, page 11, lines 326-333: It would be ideal to explain why elastic modulus obtained from the pre-compression stresses was so different from the elastic modulus obtained in the compression tests of masonry prisms (Table 8 vs. Table 3).

Authors response 6.

Thank you very much for your comment. It is assumed that height to thickness ratio is different between prism and wall specimen. That's why it is considered that the elastic modulus shows different values. Line 336-337.

 Specific comments 7:

Section 4.2, page 23, Figure 19: It would be ideal for explaining how the predicted yield and ultimate displacements were obtained. In addition, it would be advisable to show the above displacements in Table 14. Finally, I recommend further discussion as to why the displacements, as mentioned earlier, were so different in the tests concerning the analytical predictions. 

Authors response 7.

Thank you very much for your comment. The predicted yield displacement is determined by the ratio between the yield horizontal load and elastic stiffness. The predicted ultimate displacement is defined that the yield displacement is multiplied by the plasticity ratio shown in Table 12 (Line 642-645). In Table 14, the result is presented. Different displacement was explained in 701-708.

Specific comments 8:

Section 5, page 24, line 730: The word "perdition" should be changed to the word "prediction".

Authors response 8.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “prediction” in Line 723.

Specific comments 9:

I recommend the publication of this paper after the minor revisions mentioned above are included.

Authors response 9.

Thank you very much for your recommendation.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents results of shear strength and deformation capacity of a brick wall comparative to reinforced brick walls with timber and additionally, with a hold-down anchor. The manuscript is very interesting, comprehensive, the tests are well and carefully conducted and the discussions on results relevant.

The manuscript could be published after operating minor corrections, according to the following suggestions:

# a mention about the adhesion strength and frictional coefficient should be done in the text regarding the values indicated in Table 2 and in Fig. 3b (regression line)

# the sentence "As shown in Figure 4a, b shows the failure of the uniaxial compressive test, with a tensile appearing on the specimen as the compression load approached its maximum value." (lines 180-182) is not clear

# in line 199, there is 2 × 4 SPF; what means 2 × 4?

# table 6 includes the dimensions of the walls; have all walls the same thickness whether they are or not reinforced?

# the sentence "When a horizontal load is applied to a brick wall, the rubber wheel rotates freely when the horizontal load is applied to the brick wall." (lines 281-282) has repeated information

# I think that in the brackets of line 361 it should be h_a-5 instead of h_a-5' and l_5-6 instead of l_5'-6, according to Fig. 8c

# where is point A in Fig. 10a, as indicated below in the text?

# sentence " In-plane flexural failure caused by horizontal cycle loads." is not complete (line 428)

# the sentence "Figure 13a shows positive loading the tensile displacement (δT) of the BW-TA wall was measured at transducer T-3 and the compressive displacement (δC) was measured at transducer T-4." is not clear (lines 511-513)

# in line 534 there is mean maximum load (probably it should be maximum)

# the sentence "Therefore, the number of times the vertical displacement of the BW wall decreases after strengthening, as shown in Figure 15a." (lines 545-546) is not clear

# in line 552 it should be "...BW-TA wall can increase..." according to Fig. 15 b,c (not BW-T)

# Conclusions can be completed with more information that highlights the improvement given by reinforcing the BW or the given information can be better organized for the same purpose

Author Response

Review response to Dear REVIEWER – 4

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing our research. We respect your comments and suggestions. We explained our response to each comment.

Comment 1:

The manuscript presents results of shear strength and deformation capacity of a brick wall comparative to reinforced brick walls with timber and additionally, with a hold-down anchor. The manuscript is very interesting, comprehensive, the tests are well and carefully conducted and the discussions on results relevant.

Authors response 1.

Thank you very much for your comment.    

Comment 1:

The manuscript could be published after operating minor corrections, according to the following suggestions:

# a mention about the adhesion strength and frictional coefficient should be done in the text regarding the values indicated in Table 2 and in Fig. 3b (regression line)

Authors response 1.

Thank you very much for your comment. The additional explanation of Table 2 and Fig.3b was added in Line 167-176.

Comment 2:

# the sentence "As shown in Figure 4a, b shows the failure of the uniaxial compressive test, with a tensile appearing on the specimen as the compression load approached its maximum value." (lines 180-182) is not clear

Authors response 2.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “As shown in Figure 4a, b shows the failure of the uniaxial compressive test of small masonry specimen. The tensile cracks were appearing on the specimen while the compression load was reaching the maximum value.” Line 184-187.

Comment 3:

# in line 199, there is 2 × 4 SPF; what means 2 × 4?

Authors response 3.

Thank you very much for your comment. 2 x 4 (2-inch x 4-inch or 38 mm x 89 mm) means dimension of SPF (spruce-pine-fir) lumber. Line 204

Comment 4:

# table 6 includes the dimensions of the walls; have all walls the same thickness whether they are or not reinforced?

Authors response 4.

Thank you very much for your comment. The Wall dimension in Table 6 is related to only brick walls for all specimens. We changed the wall dimension including the timber part in Table 6. Line 221-222.

Comment 5:

# the sentence "When a horizontal load is applied to a brick wall, the rubber wheel rotates freely when the horizontal load is applied to the brick wall." (lines 281-282) has repeated information

Authors response 5.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “When a horizontal load is applied to a brick wall, the rubber wheel rotates freely.” Line 288

Comment 6:

# I think that in the brackets of line 361 it should be h_a-5 instead of h_a-5' and l_5-6 instead of l_5'-6, according to Fig. 8c

Authors response 6.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentences: “The cosine rule can be used to determine the angle between the two elongated slopes (l_a’-5’, l_5’-6’) of the created deformation. For simplification, the length of the deformed slope (l_a’-5’ and l_5’-6’) is considered equal to the length of the undeformed state (l_a-5 and l_5-6) in Figure 8c.” Line 363-366

Comment 7:

# where is point A in Fig. 10a, as indicated below in the text?

Authors response 7.

Thank you very much for your comment. Failure photo of the “A” point did not show in Fig.10a and failure scheme at “A” point presents in Fig.10a. The failure photo at the “A” point was almost identical to the undamaged wall. The initial vertical displacement was small. Therefore, we did not show the failure photo at “A” point. Line 405-414

Comment 8:

# sentence " In-plane flexural failure caused by horizontal cycle loads." is not complete (line 428)

Authors response 8.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “In-plane flexural failure was caused by horizontal cycle loads.” Line 428-429

Comment 9:

# the sentence "Figure 13a shows positive loading the tensile displacement (δT) of the BW-TA wall was measured at transducer T-3 and the compressive displacement (δC) was measured at transducer T-4." is not clear (lines 511-513)

Authors response 9.

Thank you very much for your comment. In Figure 13a, the tensile displacement (δ_T) of the BW-TA wall was measured at transducer T-3 and the compressive displacement (δ_C) was measured at transducer T-4 under the positive loading. Line 503-506

Comment 10:

# in line 534 there is mean maximum load (probably it should be maximum)

Authors response 10.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentence: “the mean value in the positive and negative loading is 8.2 kN.” Line 526

Comment 11:

# the sentence "Therefore, the number of times the vertical displacement of the BW wall decreases after strengthening, as shown in Figure 15a." (lines 545-546) is not clear

Authors response 11.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed sentences: “Therefore, it can be determined how many times the vertical displacement of the BW wall decreases after strengthening in Figure 15a.” Line 537-538

Comment 12:

# in line 552 it should be "...BW-TA wall can increase..." according to Fig. 15 b,c (not BW-T)

Authors response 12.

Thank you very much for your comment. Changed to “BW-TA” in Line 539.

Comment 13:

# Conclusions can be completed with more information that highlights the improvement given by reinforcing the BW or the given information can be better organized for the same purpose

Authors response 13.

Thank you very much for your comment. The revised conclusions were included in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf