Flexural Strengthening of RC Structures with TRC—Experimental Observations, Design Approach and Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript provides a brief overview of the basic structural behaviour of RC members strengthened in flexure using TRC. Moreover a design model is presented, its assumptions and limits are analysed and discussed, whereas selected case studies are finally presented. The overview of the presented work is based on research conducted mainly in Germany, and the literature review needs to be enriched. Overall, the review presented is interesting and could be published in the journal; however, the authors should revise their manuscript to address a number of points (see pdf attached) before the paper can be accepted for publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find our answers in the pdf file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an interesting overview of the application of TRC for strengthening RC structures subjected to bending. Results are presented in a clear and effective manner, with an adequate level of detail.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find our answers in the pdf file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Journal | Applied Sciences | |
Article Title | TRC Strengthening for RC Structures Subjected to Bending – Experimental Observations, Design Approach and Application |
Article ID | applsci-460441 |
Type | Reviewer’s Comments |
Date | Tuesday, February 26, 2019 |
General Comments | ||
The article treats a very interesting and crucial issue. It is suggested that this manuscript, based on its current form be entitled as a review article on the TRC Strengthening. The provided material may be improved by adding other studies in order to complete an extensive literature review. At the present form, the article is not sufficiently adequate to be considered as a research article thence it is required by the authors an extra and serious work for enhancing it. Some suggestions may be found in the following comments. The authors have investigated the possibility of retrofitting the RC elements subjected to bending, from experimental to design approaches. A clear distinction between their contribution and the literature review is not achieved. It is essential to be present such aspect, in order to highlight the contribution of this article in state of the art. The manuscript fulfills the scope of the journal. In this regard, the paper deserves the attention of the editorial board. However, for the sake of clarity, the submitted manuscript may be considered for publication only after the authors raise the following comments and carry out a major revision of their manuscript. | ||
Specific Comments | ||
· Section 2 of the manuscript does not provide a comprehensive literature review of the topic. Instead of the research history at TU Dresden the reader would be interested to have a literature review and the advancement of the research, in terms of innovative approaches from the TU Dresden. It is too long and with many trivial statements. · Section 3 is quite long. It would be more beneficial to be shorter and more concise as far as no clear contribution from the authors is present. The authors say: “The material properties strength and elongation at failure of the textiles are distributed stochastically”. The sentence is entirely out of context, or the authors have not provided adequate justification on the material properties, on how do they take them. · The presence of section 4 is more like an addition not in the right place and not correctly implemented. A review of it would be mandatory. · Section 5, the one that was expected to be the most important one is inexplicable vague. The current research is not clear. The set-up of the experiment is missing, and it cannot be judged! The authors say: “The experiments are currently being evaluated. Therefore, only the basic phenomena, observed during the experiments, should be mentioned here.” In my opinion, the chosen word “should be” is wrong and, scientifically it is unacceptable to provide results not in the correct way. · Regarding the conclusions, the authors have not pointed out, both clearly and not clearly their scopes and contributions. | ||
English | ||
· English is not perfect and requires professional editing. In some cases, the German was used instead. The manuscript should be free from errors. | ||
Final Statement | ||
The above remarks may help in the improvement and completeness of paper in terms of, consistency, clarity, and accuracy of scientific results, by means of careful addressing from the authors. All things considered, the paper is considerable for publication in the “Applied Science” journal providing the authors to account for the comments raised. | ||
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find our answers in the pdf file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
General comments:
This is a very interested research paper of a research project about the structural performance of textile reinforced concrete as a structural strengthening system of existing concrete structures. The collaboration between the existing concrete structure and the new applied layer of textile reinforced concrete is a subject of high engineering interest. The structural analysis and the respective analytical models of the stress distribution between the existing and the new structural components seem to be very interesting. In any case a detailed numerical model using Finite Element analysis Model is missing (or not referred) of this research project. Such an analysis is necessary for comparison and evaluation of the analytical and experimental tests of this composite strengthening system.
Detailed comments:
1. Syntax errors have been found frequently in a few sentences of the paper which need to be rearranged (i.e. chapter 2 “At a deflection of 8.5mm resp…………………strength”).
2. In chapter 1 the sentence “Reinforced concrete has been the world’s most widely used building material…." should be replaced by the phrase (Reinforced concrete has been the world’s most widely used composite building material….”.
3. The headings in paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 are very general and need to be more specific.
The main critical points that already noted during this research study should be included in the chapter 6 “6. Summary and Conclusions”.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find our answers in the pdf file.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors revised most of the requested comments, and the manuscript has been significantly
improved. Therefore it is suggested to be accepted for publication to the journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all the issues and have carefully improved their work. After the revision of the authors on the original manuscript, the paper is recommended to be published in the “Applied Science” journal.
