Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript combines experimental and numerical simulation methods to explore the structural performance of TRC sandwich panels with GFRP connectors under four-point bending tests, which has certain innovation and engineering application value. However, there are still several issues in the paper that are worth discussing or require further clarification. Here are some specific suggestions I have put forward:

1. There are too many keywords, many of which are unnecessary to appear. There suggests the author to reduce and refine keywords.
2. Line 49, 56, 95, 99. Many details in the manuscript need to be modified. For example, TRC and GFRP should not be abbreviated when it first appears in the main text.
3. Figure 1 (f). Why did the process of fixing the textile cause deformation? Please explain the reason.
4. Please provide clear details: Is there any contact between the textile and GFRP reinforcement? If there is contact behavior, please explain in detail what kind of contact it is?
5. Please provide the mesh size of the textile. And provide a detailed introduction on whether the textile had undergone resin polymer impregnation treatment.
6. Figure 7. The cracks depicted in bold by the author deviate from the original image. Please correct them.
7. There is inconsistency in the spelling of italicization in the formula.
8. There is no fundamental difference between Figure 6 and Figure 8.
9. Part 2.3. Please provide a detailed description of the contact behavior between each component.
10. The conclusion section summarized the performance, but did not provide specific design recommendations or specification references. The conclusion section was summarized in a rather general way and needed to be rewritten.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. All points have been carefully addressed and are described in the attached Word file. The corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Lukas Steffen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with the flexural behaviour of textile reinforced sandwich panels containing GFRP shear connectors, which is a topic worth researching. The authors do not refer to all figures and tables in the text, nor do the figures and tables appear in the sequence that they seem to be discussed. 

The sequence of the paper makes it difficult to follow and impossible to determine what the novel contribution is. The discussion at the end of the paper (pages 15 to 19) belongs in the background study at the start of the paper. After all of the other studies were mentioned in the Introduction, a clear aim should be stated. What is the novel contribution of this paper, taking into account all the other published articles?

Detailed comments include:

1) Why is the first reference to an image to Figure 2-3? See line 91. If this figure was published elsewhere, the figure cannot be published in this journal without permission from the IP owner. Is there a missing figure, or should this be a reference to Figure 3? 

2) In line 101 it is stated that the shear connectors were spaced at 400 mm intervals, but in the height of the panel the spacing was 450 mm? Please correct this.

3) In line 102, reference is made to Figure 3, but Figure 1 and 2 should be discussed before Figure 3. The sequence of the figures must be corrected, or this reference must be removed. 

4) In line 113, the spacing of shear connectors is given as 400 mm, but from Figure 3 it is clear that tne spacing in the length of the flexural test was 450 mm.

5) In line 116 and 117, reference is made to Table 3 and Figure 3. It is important to refer to tables and figures in the sequence that they appear in the paper. The whole experimental setup section probably needs re-writing to ensure that information is provided in a logical sequence.

6) There does not seem to be an in text reference to Table 1.

7) Figure 1 should be on one full page and not split over pages. Typically a figure appears just after it was first mentioned in the text. There does not seem to be any in text reference to Figure 1, despite the paragraph starting in line 135 seemingly referring to the figure.

8) What does fresh-in-fresh mean in line 135? It is not a standard technical term.

9) It is stated that the position of the textile grid in the compression zone does not matter, but is this true in reality? Would the wall panels when used in practice not be subjected to possible horizontal loads that can come from inside or outside the house? When these panels are made, both sides should be able to withstand compressions and/or tension.

10) There is no indication of the number of panels made or tested. Were identical repeat samples made for testing flexural behaviour?

11) For the experimental setup distances are given in cm. Standard SI units is mm and m and the cm values should please be given in mm.

12) In line 158 mention is made of 'concrete columns' in the four point bending test. These columns are not indicated in Figure 2 or Figure 3. It is unclear where these columns were in terms of the test setup.

13) It would be good to include a photo of the actual test setup, as that will allow the reader to better understand the described setup.

14) Why were horizontal LVDTs  (1S and 2S) only placed on the top layer and not on the bottom layer too? The description of how the horizontal LVDTs were attached the panels is difficult to understand and a photo can help explain.

15) What is SP1, SP2 and SP3 in Figure 6? There is a background shading in the figure that will not look good in a published article. This figure also has a light grey frame around it when printed and that should be removed. The same is true for Figure 8, 9, 12 and 13.

16) There is no in text reference to Figure 8.

17) The information in line 262 is repeated in line 264.

18) There should be spaces before and after the equal sign in line 279.

19) In line 314 specimen P1 is mentioned. Is that a new specimen? Was SP1, SP2and SP3 three other specimen?

20) In Figure 9, there are 3 lines for SP1, SP2 and SP3. How do these lines link to LVDTs S1 and S2? Were their values added together or averaged for each specimen tested? There does not seem to be any in text reference to Figure 9. In Figure 2 these LVDTs are labelled as 1S and 2S, but now they are S1 and S2.

21) The sentence in line 367 and 368 does not make any sense.

22) In Figure 10 and Figure 11 the font of the legend is too small to read and pixelated.

23) Figure 13 should not have a title in the top of the graph. The figure may read better if it is drawn with a top and bottom surface in the top and bottom of the figure (90 degree turn to make vertical path vertical). It would also be good to indicate the different elements of the composite sandwich panel in this figure. 

24) Figure 14 b) looks untidy when printed as the stress values print into the 3D grid.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used can be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. All points have been carefully addressed and are described in the attached Word file. The corresponding changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

Best regards,
Lukas Steffen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors fully answered the previously raised questions and made revisions to the problematic parts of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the changes as requested and the paper can be accepted as is.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used can be improved.