Effect of Planting Rebars on the Shear Strength of Interface between Full Lightweight Ceramsite Concrete and Ordinary Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper investigates the shear interfacial strength between FLWCC and OC. The authors suggest the use of reinforcement at the interface to improve its strength capabilities and add further knowledge to this topic given the existing conflicting opinions. Materials, building of samples, and testing are clear, described in detail, and supported with images. The results are very well justified and thoroughly discussed using the current literature. Conclusions are based on the study’s results. Few comments:
In Figure 2, annotate reinforcement. State units.
Line 187 Rewrite: The finished specimens are shown in Figure 3.
In Figure 4a, add a note with an arrow targeting the interface and specifying that the sample contains reinforcement. In the same figure wording on the right top “Loading point” is not visible. Correct.
Reconsider figure 4 caption. Perhaps “Test configuration of concrete samples (a) Test diagram and (b) Laboratory test setup”
Line 204 Is shown not was shown. Correct this in the whole paper.
Line 278 Replace “By the way” with “Similarly” or other formal synonym
There are some grammatical mistakes throughout the paper. This is why I advise the authors to again proofread the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article investigates the impact of reinforcing the interface between full lightweight ceramsite concrete (FLWCC) and ordinary concrete (OC) in structural repair applications. While the topic is promising, the article requires significant revisions to enhance its clarity and scientific rigor. Here are some major points that need attention:
1) The abstract should provide a clear and concise summary of the study. The current abstract is somewhat convoluted and could be improved by structuring it more logically. Begin with a brief introduction, followed by the methods, key results, and concluding remarks.
2) Introduction: The introduction should provide context for the study and clearly state the research objectives. It should also include a brief review of the existing literature on the subject with the recent references:
a) Fang, B., Hu, Z., Shi, T., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Yang, D.,... Zhao, Z. (2022). Research progress on the properties and applications of magnesium phosphate cement. Ceramics International. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2022.11.078
b) Peng, J., Xu, C., Dai, B., Sun, L., Feng, J.,... Huang, Q. (2022). Numerical Investigation of Brittleness Effect on Strength and Microcracking Behavior of Crystalline Rock. International Journal of Geomechanics, 22(10), 4022178. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002529
c) Zhao, Y., Jing, J., Chen, L., Xu, F., & Hou, H. (2021). Current Research Status of Interface of Ceramic-Metal Laminated Composite Material for Armor Protection. Jinshu Xuebao/Acta Metallurgica Sinica, 57, 1107-1125. doi: 10.11900/0412.1961.2021.00051
d) Wang, M., Yang, X., & Wang, W. (2022). Establishing a 3D aggregates database from X-ray CT scans of bulk concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 315, 125740. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125740
e) Tang, H., Yang, Y., Li, H., Xiao, L., & Ge, Y. (2023). Effects of chloride salt erosion and freeze–thaw cycle on interface shear behavior between ordinary concrete and self-compacting concrete. Structures, 56, 104990. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2023.104990
f) Shariati, M., Ramli Sulong, N. H., Arabnejad, M. M. K. H., & Mahoutian, M. (2011). Shear resistance of channel shear connectors in plain, reinforced and lightweight concrete. Scientific research and essays, 6(4), 977-983.
g) Shariati, M., Ramli Sulong, N. H., Sinaei, H., Arabnejad Khanouki, M. M., & Shafigh, P. (2011). Behavior of channel shear connectors in normal and light weight aggregate concrete (experimental and analytical study). Advanced materials research, 168, 2303-2307.
3) The results section should present the data and findings in a clear and organized manner.
4) The article contains several grammatical and syntactical errors that need to be corrected. Additionally, some sentences are unclear or lack proper structure, making it difficult to follow the content.
5) Ensure that all claims and findings are properly cited, and the references are formatted according to a recognized citation style
6) Provide more details on the statistical methods used, including the significance levels and statistical tests performed.
7) What motivated the choice of using FLWCC for structural reinforcement?
8) Clarify the significance of studying the interface between FLWCC and OC
9) provide additional insights into the broader implications of this study for the field of structural engineering and concrete technology
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have looked at the effects of rebar configuration on using lightweight concrete to repair existing normal concrete structures. I believe this is an interesting topic, and they have designed their experiments to address a few research questions adequately addressed in the Introduction. While the Introduction is good enough, it will appeal to a wider audience if some space could be given to address ceramsite concrete and its characteristics.
Line 38: "…they suffer from such diseases as creeping and freeze-thaw cycles…"
Need to revise this statement. The effects described here are not "diseases". These well-known material's behaviours are quantifiable by creep resistance and resistance to thermal expansion or by the coefficient of thermal expansion.
Line 35 – 36: I would like the authors to address the need for lightweighting in concrete structures. Is this a necessary criterion? I am not convinced.
The general use of "reinforcement implantation" is unconventional. Implantation suggests the placing of a device or another body into an already formed one. Concrete reinforcement is part of the concrete formwork. It is not placed after concrete and, therefore, can not pass as "implantation". It could be described as a scaffold to build a structural formwork.
Line 240: What is reinforcement number? Was this the number of rebar in the formwork? If this is the case, the scientific method of quantifying this is the volume or area proportion of rebars. The term reinforcement number has no real meaning, and it is confusing.
The authors should consider revising the text and on Figure 9.
Line 260 "Reinforcement diameter" Again, this term is confusing. Should this be rebar diameter?
This work is well presented. They need to address a few issues involving unconventional use of engineering terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper investigates the shear performance of bonding interface between full lightweight ceramsite concrete and ordinary concrete. The topic is actual. The paper is of sufficient originality due to the performed experimental campaign . The references are appropriate. The comparison between the experimental results and the calculated strengths according to some codes is interesting.
In my opinion, the fracture damage patterns of the 12 test groups should be more clearly described . Besides, put Table 12 instead of table 15 at row 377.
Some minor changes are necessary.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
