Flexural and Shear Strengthening of High-Strength Concrete Beams Using near Surface Basalt Fiber Bars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study on structural reinforcement in reinforced concrete beams is well-written and well-founded. The use of various reinforcement configurations demonstrates that there can be changes in the rupture criteria and the ductility of the structure. Additional comments will be provided to enhance the quality of the work.

Abstract: Please include the definition of "RC," which is not currently mentioned and should be incorporated in the introduction.

Additionally, what type of curing method was used on the concrete beams?

Table 1: The average compressive strength of the concrete tested in the beams is missing. Please provide this information.

Figure 5c: Please adjust to ensure the correct overlay of images is displayed.

Figure 6 should indicate the measurements of the supports' position and the load's application.

Figure 7: The appropriate caption for this figure has not been included.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Reviewer for his comprehensive review of the revised paper. The authors hope that the modifications made in the revised paper are sufficient to answer the Reviewer's and Editor's comments.

Following, we offer point-by-point replies to the issues and points the reviewers addressed regarding the original manuscript.

With kind regards

 

 

• Abstract: Please include the definition of "RC," which is not currently mentioned and should be incorporated in the introduction.

Done

• Additionally, what type of curing method was used on the concrete beams?

 the beams were wrapped in burlap and sprayed with water daily for 28days.

• Table 1: The average compressive strength of the concrete tested in the beams is missing. Please provide this information.

Three cylinders were tested after 28 days of curing and the compressive strength was 55.2MPa

• Figure 5c: Please adjust to ensure the correct overlay of images is displayed.

Done

• Figure 6 should indicate the measurements of the supports' position and the load's application.

Done

• Figure 7: The appropriate caption for this figure has not been included.

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my judgment, the paper could be accepted for publishing after taking into consideration the following comments:

 

1.      In the abstract: what is the difference between NSM-Basalt Bar (NSM-BB) and NSM-BFRP, because I believe that the both are the same.

2.      The key words are little wide ranged, the author must use some most specific key words.

3.      A list of the symbols and abbreviations used must be included at the beginning of the work.

4.      The novelty of the current work must be presented with satisfactory details at the end of the introduction part.

5.      Figure 1. “Sieve analysis of aggregate grading”: the author must enlarge this figure to be readable.

6.      Figure 2, the author has to display the reinforcement details in the elevation.

7.      In section “2.2 Beam Specimens”, the author must mention the shear span to depth ratio (a/d), because a/d for flexure beams must be different from the a/d for the shear beams.

8.      Table 5. “Sample details”, the author must replace the word “Details” with “strengthening technique”.

9.      In Figures 3 and 4, the author must provide more quantitative details in this figure such as beam depth, beam width, bars distance, etc.

10.  In Figures 8 and 10, in order to highlight the appearance of the cracks, the author must restrict the image to the shape of the tested beam and ignore anything else.

11.  In Figures 9 and 11, the author must include the units of the x-axis (Load kN) and y-axis (Displacement mm). The author must review all the figures to avoid this shortage.

12.  In References, The first author of each reference is written incorrectly (letters only), the author must correct this errors.

13.                       The DOI should be written for references whenever possible.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Reviewer for his comprehensive review of the paper.  Following, we offer point-by-point replies to the issues and points the reviewers addressed regarding the original manuscript.

With kind regards

 

 

1. In the abstract: what is the difference between NSM-Basalt Bar (NSM-BB) and NSM-BFRP, because I believe that the both are the same.

Was corrected

2. The key words are little wide ranged, the author must use some most specific key words.

Done

3. A list of the symbols and abbreviations used must be included at the beginning of the work.
4. Done

 

5. The novelty of the current work must be presented with satisfactory details at the end of the introduction part.

 

Done

6. Figure 1. “Sieve analysis of aggregate grading”: the author must enlarge this figure to be readable. Done

 

6. Figure 2, the author has to display the reinforcement details in the elevation. Done

 

7. In section “2.2 Beam Specimens”, the author must mention the shear span to depth ratio (a/d), because a/d for flexure beams must be different from the a/d for the shear beams. Done
8. Table 5. “Sample details”, the author must replace the word “Details” with “strengthening technique”. Done

 

9. In Figures 3 and 4, the author must provide more quantitative details in this figure such as beam depth, beam width, bars distance, etc.

Done

 

10. In Figures 8 and 10, in order to highlight the appearance of the cracks, the author must restrict the image to the shape of the tested beam and ignore anything else. Done

 

11. In Figures 9 and 11, the author must include the units of the x-axis (Load kN) and y-axis (Displacement mm). The author must review all the figures to avoid this shortage.Done

 

12. In References, The first author of each reference is written incorrectly (letters only), the author must correct this errors. Done

 

13. The DOI should be written for references whenever possible. Done

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The flexural and shear strengthening of high strength concrete beams using near surface basalt fiber reinforced polymer bars was investigated. The topic is very interesting, and it holds significant scientific research value. The manuscript should be published after minor revisions.

1．The two images overlap in Fig. 5.

2.  The failure of the control for the group one is not similar to the rare-reinforced beam. It is the shear failure in the Fig. 8. 

3．In the section of introducition, the review of the FRP reinforced concrete structure should be added. The literature may be reffered as follows:

1) Effects of freeze-thaw cycles on the bond behaviors between the CFRP and concrete substrate. Journal of Composites for Construction. 2018, 22(3): 04018011.

2) Durability of BFRP bars and BFRP reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete beams immersed in water and simulated seawater. Construction and Building Materials. 2023, 363: 129845.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Reviewer for his comprehensive review of the revised paper. The authors hope that the modifications made in the revised paper are sufficient to answer the Reviewer's and Editor's comments.

Following, we offer point-by-point replies to the issues and points the reviewers addressed regarding the original manuscript.

With kind regards

• 1．The two images overlap in Fig. 5.

Was corrected

• The failure of the control for the group one is not similar to the rare-reinforced beam. It is the shear failure in the Fig. 8. 

It was revised

3．In the section of introduction, the review of the FRP reinforced concrete structure should be added. The literature may be referred as follows:

1) Effects of freeze-thaw cycles on the bond behaviors between the CFRP and concrete substrate. Journal of Composites for Construction. 2018, 22(3): 04018011.

2) Durability of BFRP bars and BFRP reinforced seawater sea-sand concrete beams immersed in water and simulated seawater. Construction and Building Materials. 2023, 363: 129845.

Done