Evaluation of Structural Performance of Post-Installed Anchors Embedded in Cracked Concrete in Power Plant Facilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, thank you for your interesting paper focused on the investigation of post-installed anchors. My comments are:
- is it necessary to have "Power plant Facilities" in the title? I think anchoring can be used in other types of construction, right?
- lines 65 and 67: "where" - not capital "W",
- formula (2): copied but uncorrected equation (1) - change to shear strength "V", not normal "N",
- after Fig.1 goes Fig. 4 - where are Fig. 2 and FIG. 3? Change Fig. 4 to FIG. 2, or complete / add Fig. 2 and 3,
- it is necessary to supplement fig. 2 and 3, but renumber all pictures after Fig. 1,
- line 84: code ACI 355.2 - missing in the literature, I recommend adding to references,
- line 137: ACI 318 [12]: Code ACI 318 is literature [6] in references. Does literature [12] belong here?
- line 142 and later: "jig" - is it not better to use the term preparation or equipment set?
- FIG. 8, FIG. 12: dimensions and texts are very small, hard to read,
- Tab. 4: why is in cracked concrete higher resistance? shouldn't it be the other way around?
- Tab. 6: please, control the values, I think that they are not correct,
Figs. 17 and 19: I recommend enlarging the images for better control,
-lines 345-346: there is no citation of the literature [7] in the text.
Best regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is addressed to investigate the behavior of M10 and M12 anchorages fixed within concrete blocks subjected to cycling pull-out and shear tests. Firstly, a brief introduction to different type of steel anchor is reported together with a description of the tests conducted. Then, the experimental results are illustrating, showing failure modes of anchors, and the related response in terms of force-displacement.
It is opinion if the Reviewer that the paper contents are aligned with the Journal topics, and therefore it may be considered for publication. However, before its publication the following comments should be taken into account.
Point 1. It should be mentioned that slippages are also significant in the seismic performance the anchors under tension, as demonstrated by the experimental values measured during the tests conducted. Therefore, at least in the Introduction this aspect should be mentioned, clearly stating that in literature this phenomenon has been already analyzed for longitudinal steel bars (see, among the others references below), where also confinement effects on anchorage conditions have been analyzed.
- D'Amato, M., Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., Kunnath, S., Laterza, M. 2012. Validation of a modified steel bar model incorporating bond-slip for seismic assessment of concrete structures. Journal of Structural Engineering (United States), 138 (11), pp. 1351-1360.
- Monti, G., Filippou, F. C., and Spacone, E., 1997. Finite element for anchored bars under cyclic load reversals. J. Struct. Eng., 123(5), 614-623.
In addition, confinement effects of anchors performance should be investigated in future research. This aspect may be commented in the conclusion.
Point 2. If the Reviewer properly understands, in the paper are only invoked some design codes addressed to steel anchors, but no analytical evaluation of their axial and shear strength according to these codes is reported. Therefore, Authors are invited to add these analytical evolutions (if available) for a comparison with the experimental results found. This, for sure, would improve the scientific soundness of the paper.
Point 3. Please, better specify the condition of cracked concrete assumed as reference in some experimental tests of anchors.
Point 4. Figure 17, Figure 18, Figure 19, Figure 20. Please, add comment about the results reported in these figures. In this form the manuscript just reports the results of the experimental tests conducted. Figure 18 and Figure 20: what does the horizontal line mean? Please specify.
Point 5. Figure 5 and Figure 6. Please change “Cycle” in “Number of cycles”
Point 6. I suggest of removing the sentence “Because this was an experimental study, it will be necessary in the future to additionally conduct analytical research to verify the reliability and applied parameters of the experiment”. Instead, please add future aims to be investigated in the future.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for improving your paper. I think it is better and the paper is able to publish. I wish you the best.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been revised according to some comments provided.
The manuscript may be published in the revised form.
