Fracture Mechanics-Based Modelling of Post-Installed Adhesive FRP Composite Anchors in Structural Concrete Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents an analytical method for predicting the pull-out force of FRP anchors adhesively bonded to concrete. The predicted pull-out force is shown to be in good agreement with the experimental results. I think this paper contains sufficient content to be published. Please address my comments below and improve the paper.

(1) About Figure 2:

*To aid the reader's understanding, it is necessary to add "dx" to the figure and to clearly indicate the forces acting on the infinitesimal elements.

* An explanation is needed about "tf". Is tf the position where concrete will shear break when the anchor is pulled out? Please add an explanation that is easy for readers to understand.

*There is no explanation for the change in shear stress on the right side of Figure 2(a). It will be explained in Figure 4 later.

(2) I think that equations (5) and (6) are derived from Hooke's law. Since there is no explanation, I think it will be difficult for readers to understand. Please add an explanation.

(3) It would be easier for readers to understand if you put the following statement between equation (7) and equation (8):

"Here, if we define β as in equation (9) and τ(x) as in equation (10), equation (7) becomes equation (8)."

(4) Line 113: The following statement would be easier for readers to understand.

"A double-branched shear-slip curve is adopted for the joint between the FRP anchor and the concrete (Figure 4)."

(5) Line 118: It is easier to understand if you add the following explanation.

"Therefore, the function f(δ) in equation (10) is given by the following equation."

(6) Regarding Figure 4, supporting experimental results or literature must be provided.

Author Response

Please find attached the authors’ responses to the comments provided by Reviewer 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

I reviewed the manuscript and made comments, which are below as follows:

1. The authors present a good research paper titled Fracture Mechanics-Based Modeling of Post-installed Adhesive FRP Composite Anchors in Structural Concrete Applications. However, the article has grammatical errors and be suggested for proofreading and English of the manuscript needs more improvement. 

1. In the abstract, should start with the general information about study and then the aim of the study please re-write in the scientific writing and the recommendation for the future studies last line of the abstract should be added.
2. Add more keywords to help searchers find your research and reconsider the keywords so that they attract more readers' attention.
3. The authors should revise the introduction part; this part represents a literature review on the current study. Double check.
4. In the introduction line 29 to line 34 revised and write in the paragraph format as well as be consequences in according to aim of the study.
5. In the introduction  part last paragraph line 80-83 should discuss in details the aim of the study with main findings.
6. In order to make your research more attractive to readers and researchers, I suggest that you include a new section entitled "Research significance", which is present the most important of the research and showed the gap and novelty.

8. The quality of figures is not clear. Please improve them.
9. The discussion part is missing. The author needs to compare their results with previously published papers and write a discussion. In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance.
10. Conclusion: Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study.
11. What are your future recommendations based upon this study?. Could you please added the future recommendations insights into the study.
12. References must be relevant, updated (at least 50% of the references have been published within the last 5 years), and correctly cited.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors, 

The manuscript need more enhancement in the english language to increase the quality of the paper. 

Thank you.

Author Response

Please find attached the authors’ responses to the comments provided by Reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for address the comments and revised in the manuscript but still some comments need to be addressed such recommendations based upon this study need to be in the separate section as well as references must be updated. 

Thank you

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The authors very much appreciate your thorough review of teh manuscript and are glad that the majority of your concerns were addressed by the authors. Regarding the remaining concenrs of the reviewer, we have addressed those carefully as can be seen below:

Comment 1: recommendations based upon this study need to be in the separate section

Answer 1: A separate section is now developed in "5. Recommendations" to address the reviewers comments.

Comment 2: references must be updated

Answer 2: Considering the innovative nature of this research topic, there are currently limited references specifically focusing on composite adhesively bonded FRP bars. Most available references pertain to steel anchors, which do not align with the focus of this study. Nevertheless, we have included a recent reference from 2020 to ensure contemporary context:

California Department of Transportation. Post-Installed Adhesive Anchors in Concrete – Structure Technical Policy 5.50; California Department of Transportation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 2020. 

The authors would appreciate the reviewers’ suggestions on additional relevant references that could enhance the comprehensiveness of the manuscript..