Bond Performance of Seamless Steel Pipe Grouting Sleeves under Large-Deformation Repeated Tension and Compression after High Temperature
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome of the corrections were observed in the manuscript....which need to be corrected before the final publication.
- Reduce the size of abstract... Also codal specification is not required in the abstract section.
- Use first letter of keyword as capital.
- Add some supporting literature for the result and discussion section to validate the authenticity of your outcomes.
- A description is required in the SEM images section for all images....like cracks, calcium oxide etc.
- Present a crisp summary of result and discussion in conclusion section.
Minor English editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I liked your article very much. It is well structured, the abstract expresses the essence of the article. The treatment of experimental data and microscopic study is clear and complete. However, at the very end of the introduction and in the test, the objectives of the study are not clear. The words "fire resistance" and "earthquake resistance" appear frequently. Why were 28 specimens chosen? Why was this particular type of specimen chosen, what is the rationale behind it?
Please add a more detailed justification of the purpose and objectives of the study at the end of the "Introduction" section. In the "Materials and Methods" section, give a more detailed justification of the choice of samples, quantity and research methods.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
The manuscript has been checked attentively. I believe that the topics of the present study is interesting. However, there are several issues need to be considered adequately before that the manuscript being publishable. Such issues are explained as:
1A- Title: why large deformations?
1B-Abstract: What are the parameters to be considered? The recommendation should be related with exp. work. Significant and specific findings should be reported relevant to the parameters of the study. What are the applications of the present study?
2-Procedure of sleeve grouting may be used in segmental members including D-regions as deep beams, dapped ends, corbels, etc. The following articles are recommended in this regard:
-Enhancement of The Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Dapped End Beams Including Single pocket Loaded By A Vertical Concentrated Force
-Behavior of Pocket-Type High-Strength RC Beams Without or With Dapped Ends
3-Check whether the present study considered the earthquake or repeated load with few cycles. Moreover, The novelty of the present study should be recognized.
4-Sec.2.1:" 28 seamless steel pipe grouting sleeve connectors were made" Most of results do not refer to such no. of specimens. indicate the parameters that are considered.
5-Quaility of some pictures and figures is not adequate. Better quality is recommended.
6-The source of equations and adapted figures should be indicated.
7- A list of notations should be added to define the meanings of notation, abbreviations, and coding of the tested specimens.
8- Machines used in test should be shown with some specimens under test.
9-Fig.1: this is similar to a coupler system of bars but with grout. How to apply this method practically?
10-Fig.2: Not similar to Fig.1? Quality is not adequate!
11-The profile of repeated loading should be shown in a sketch, not in an equation.
12-Sec.2.2.3: What is the question of the study? why measure strains in two directions?
13-Sec.3.3.1: the color is not one of the topics of the study! Show specimens when testing.
14-Sec.3.1.2: 1st &2nd paragraphs: more clarifications are necessary.
15-Sec.3.1.2:3rd paragraph:" According to the relationship between the....."More clarifications are necessary. 4th paragraph:" At 800℃, two test-pieces...." values are stresses, not load capacities.
16-Sec.3.1.3: re-write discussions in a clearer writing. Deep discussions for all the results should be carried out.
17-Fig.8: Discuss the curves deeply and specifically. Compare between results. What are the significant findings?
18-Sec.3.1.4: Fig.9&10; All specimens should be discussed deeply, and comparisons between results should be conducted to find out the significant conclusions.
19-Sec.3.2.1: This is a fact that the compressive strength of concrete reduces with temp.
20-Sec.3.2.2: No microscopic pictures were shown!!! check please fig. 12, How did the author recognize this as the specimens were fractured? Moreover, the schematic diagram (Fig.13) may not represent the experimental behavior!
21-Sec.3.2.3: (Fig.15) Refer please, to the crystals, voids, etc. on the pictures to clarify the discussions.
22-Sec.4.1&4.2; table 3: More clarifications are necessary. Source of equations. Significant findings(%)
23-Fig.17&18: What are the significant conclusions relevant to the topics of the present work?
24-Equ.(5): How to relate K value with temp. , dia. of the bar and the properties of the surface?
25-Specific(%) and significant conclusions should be reported. Such findings should reflect the importance of the topics of the study.
26-More comments are included in the reviewer attachment.
27- Full and professional proofreading is recommended.
28- A detailed report of responses is recommended to be submitted besides the colored revised manuscript.
Kind regards
Kind regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of the English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
Please check the comments on responses and comments of the second round.
Please re-consider the comments with the “Not ok.” response again.
Adequate responses support the “accept” recommendation.
Comments on response:
1a-Not ok. No response.
1b-No ok. See comments on the attachment.
2-ok.
3-No ok. See comments....
4-8: ok.
9-Not ok.
10,11:ok.
12-19:Not ok. No responses.
20-ok.
21-Not ok. No response, Check the comments in the attachment.
22,23: ok.
24-28:Not ok. deep discussions are recommended.
No report of responses was provided, and most of the responses that are checked in the revised manuscript are not adequate.
Comments (2nd round)
1- Deep and specific discussions for all results are necessary.
2- The findings to be included in the abstract and to be reported in “Conclusions” should consider the parameters of the study.
3- Novelty of the study should be recognized adequately.
4- Check comments that have been included in the attachment.
5- Detailed report of responses and colored manuscript should be provided such that the checking of revisions is done in a short time.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Full proofreading is recommended. level of writing is (weak-too weak). Language should be polished.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
The recommended revisions have been achieved adequately.
No further comments.
Kind regards
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome paragraphs may be more polished. However, the level of language is satisfactory.
