Test Loading of Structures with a Suspect Resistance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Attached is a manuscript review report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
See on the downloaded paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting and relevant. I do not think I have sufficient understanding of the scientific background to fully understand the analysis presented - but as much as I do understand it, the conclusions seem sound and a useful foundation for other researchers to build upon - to allow more structural verification to be done by proof load.
I can make the following recommendations to improve the paper:
In the abstract it is not clear what is meant by "when the material or the joints have especially high resistance variability". Perhaps, you mean when a structure is suspected to have especially high resistance variability (?)
There is a word missing on line 33. "the load bearing capacity of a structure". "Confirm" or "verify" are perhaps also better word options than "secure".
The paragraph at starting at line 50 is not totally clear. Perhaps "...for which demolition had been suggested by previous studies but which, through proof loading, have been verified for sufficient load bearing capacity without strengthening".
Line 73: I think you mean "partial or full alternative" rather than "partial or full replacement" (?)
Line 74: It might be clearer to say "the Eurocodes as implemented in Finland"
Line 114: English/clarity: "Some materials, such as timber and plastic, have lower resistance for longer duration loads than they do for short duration loads"
Line 119: Do you really mean "a couple of seconds" or "durations of seconds or minutes"
Line 121: The sentence "Most timber structures are loaded with a medium-term load" needs more explanation since most timber structures also have long-term loads too, and all have permanent loads.
The sentence starting at line 139 is not totally clear. I think here you mean that is the actual snow load exceeds the critical load, action can be take to remove the snow in order to reduce the load. That makes sense but it not immediate obvious from the words.
All figures should have lines labeled as the descriptions in the caption are confusing. This is especially true for figure 1.
Line 348: I am not sure what you are describing here. In Europe glulam lamellas graded to EN14081 are not proof-loaded as part of that system. Even when the grading is done by a bending type machine it is not operating on a proof loading basis, and output control strength grading of timber is also not proof loading. (Outside Europe there are some countries with timber strength grading based on proof loading). I do not think it is a generally true statement that all glued timber trusses are always tested for proof loading.
It is not for the paper, but I would also like to say that there is another, informal, kind of proof loading in use in Europe - that is a lot of timber grading - especially visual grading - that is based on long standing experience without problems.
Author Response
See on the downloaded paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Article Reference: applsci-1156911-peer-review-v1
Detail Comments on the article “Proof-loading” Applied Sciences
General Overview:
This study investigates the significance of Proof-Loading in a theoretical approach. The authors relate their findings with the Eurocode. In short, the work is interesting though its theoretical. Would be great if author could at least use sample test data either from their own work or from existing literature to justify their findings.
However, the work is interesting for readers, therefore, the following recommendations are to authors to improve the overall quality of the article:
- The title of the paper “Proof-loading” is really confusing, it doesn’t carry the overall message.
- Hence authors are recommended to find a more suitable title that might be easy to the researchers from the same field to find/understand the topic easily.
- The references are too limited to the overall applications.
- And more than 33% are self-citations.
- Incorporating more relevant reference is not an option but must.
- And though the authors have claimed that their (β50 = 3.2) agrees with the Eurocode. Actually, it is always a question between theorical & experimental data.
- If possible, it is highly recommended to add a justification based on experimental data (own/from existing literature).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See on the downloaded paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This study investigates the significance of Proof-Loading in a theoretical approach. The authors relate their findings with the Eurocode.
And the Authors have done the improvement of their work as per the recommendation.
Therefore, this may be considered for the publication now.
