Experimental Investigations of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Innovative Truss-Shaped Reinforcement System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present experimental findings on concrete beams reinforced with steel truss arrangements. The paper is not acceptable at its current form and the following comments are suggested to be addressed:
- A new section to be added, stating the importance of this technique and the main benefits compared to more traditional methods as well the potential implementation? Limitation this technique should also be mentioned
- Truss arrangement: How would be the anchorage and connection between structural elements (e.g. bam to column?) Authors to add a paragraph elaborating on this
- Truss arrangement: Will the configuration will always be in standard angles? Authors to elaborate
- As shown in Figure 2, shear links are more closely included close to the support where the shear forces are large. This is not the case in the truss configuration. Authors are suggested to comment on that and add a corresponding discussion in the paper. Will the geometry change closer to the support?
- In addition to optical methods, why the authors did not consider including displacement transducers (LVDTs) and strain gauges as commonly done in this research? This would improve the presentation and discussion of the results and particularly of the load-deflection curves
- A new section is suggested to be added to elaborate on the theoretical calculation of the Force at cracking and at failure of each of the four beams. All relevant equations and concepts need to be included, so that the reader can design such beams
- It is suggested to add a photo in the transverse direction to better visualise the reinforcement in this direction.
- Abstract: In the abstract the conclusion with respect to the number of cracks is suggested to be improved. As it is currently written, it implies that the truss reinforcement is not a good recommendation (as of course we would cracks to be minimised)
9. Literature review: This part needs to be enhanced - please add any scientific article with “non-conventional” reinforcement
Author Response
Professor Adam Stolarski, Ph. D, D. Sc.
Military University of Technology
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy
2 gen. Sylwestra Kaliskiego Street
00-908 Warsaw-49, Poland
12 March, 2021
MDPI AG
materials-1124568
Publication Title: Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system
Journal Title: Materials
Manuscript Authors: Adam Stolarski, Jacek Zychowicz
To Reviewer 1:
I would like to thank you very much for insightful review of our manuscript. I am sure that it influents positively for final shape of our manuscript. We have considered and have taken into account all of your remarks during correction of the manuscript as follow. Moreover, all changes have been marked in the manuscript in the form of tracking changes.
Comment 1
A new section to be added, stating the importance of this technique and the main benefits compared to more traditional methods as well the potential implementation? Limitation this technique should also be mentioned
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 1.2 Lns 176 - 214 and in Subsection 7.1 Lns 588 - 615.
Comment 2
Truss arrangement: How would be the anchorage and connection between structural elements (e.g. bam to column?) Authors to add a paragraph elaborating on this
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 1.2 Lns 176 - 214
Comment 3
Truss arrangement: Will the configuration will always be in standard angles? Authors to elaborate
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 1.2 Lns 176 - 214.
Comment 4
As shown in Figure 2, shear links are more closely included close to the support where the shear forces are large. This is not the case in the truss configuration. Authors are suggested to comment on that and add a corresponding discussion in the paper. Will the geometry change closer to the support?
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 7.1 Lns 588 - 615.
Comment 5
In addition to optical methods, why the authors did not consider including displacement transducers (LVDTs) and strain gauges as commonly done in this research? This would improve the presentation and discussion of the results and particularly of the load-deflection curves
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 7.1 Lns 588 - 615.
Comment 6
A new section is suggested to be added to elaborate on the theoretical calculation of the Force at cracking and at failure of each of the four beams. All relevant equations and concepts need to be included, so that the reader can design such beams
- Has been taken into account. Appendix A has been added. Appendix A provides a suitable description for the determination of the analytical cracking and failure force values for all beams. The text of paper also includes an appropriate reference to Appendix A.
Comment 7
It is suggested to add a photo in the transverse direction to better visualizse the reinforcement in this direction.
- Has been taken into account. Figure 3 (b) has been added.
Comment 8
Abstract: In the abstract the conclusion with respect to the number of cracks is suggested to be improved. As it is currently written, it implies that the truss reinforcement is not a good recommendation (as of course we would cracks to be minimised)
- Has been taken into account. The description in the abstract has been corrected Lns 20-22.
Comment 9
Literature review: This part needs to be enhanced - please add any scientific article with “non-conventional” reinforcement
- Has been taken into account. The description of the bibliography has been changed.
Once again I would like to thank you very much for all comments and suggestions that gave us opportunity to improve our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Adam Stolarski
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents an experimental analysis of the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with a new, patented system of truss-shaped reinforcement. The paper is quite impressive. However, some critical points should be solved. Moreover, concise and it addresses an interesting and relevant problem. English is acceptable. The Figures and the tables appear clear.
1) I suggest reporting the outline of the paper at the end of the introduction.
2) The authors adopted are adopting this kind od no contact methods to record the displacement and the strain of the samples. I recommend increasing literature about the full strain methodologies to detect strain evolution to justify this choice. I recommend using the following novel paper adopting DIC and other technique for strain monitoring.
-
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.102924
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.056
and other similar articles.
3) Figure 7 reports the crack path. However, I suggest introducing a zoomed view of the cracked regions.
4) There are not evidence of the usage of the system for strain monitoring. I suggest improving these aspects.
5) Conclusion Section is not exhaustive. I suggest to improve it.
Author Response
Professor Adam Stolarski, Ph. D, D. Sc.
Military University of Technology
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy
2 gen. Sylwestra Kaliskiego Street
00-908 Warsaw-49, Poland
12 March, 2021
MDPI AG
materials-1124568
Publication Title: Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system
Journal Title: Materials
Manuscript Authors: Adam Stolarski, Jacek Zychowicz
To Reviewer 2:
I would like to thank you very much for insightful review of our manuscript. I am sure that it influents positively for final shape of our manuscript. We have considered and have taken into account all of your remarks during correction of the manuscript as follow. Moreover, all changes have been marked in the manuscript in the form of tracking changes.
Comment 1
I suggest reporting the outline of the paper at the end of the introduction.
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in new, rearranged Subsection 1.3 Lns 176 - 214.
Comment 2
The authors adopted are adopting this kind od no contact methods to record the displacement and the strain of the samples. I recommend increasing literature about the full strain methodologies to detect strain evolution to justify this choice. I recommend using the following novel paper adopting DIC and other technique for strain monitoring.
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.102924
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.08.056
and other similar articles.
- Has been taken into account. The description of the bibliography has been changed including suggested articles.
Comment 3
Figure 7 reports the crack path. However, I suggest introducing a zoomed view of the cracked regions.
- Has been taken into account. Two new Figures 8 ang 10 has been added for selected load states corresponding to the largest displacements of beams.
Comment 4
There are not evidence of the usage of the system for strain monitoring. I suggest improving these aspects.
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 7.1 Lns 588 - 615.
Comment 5
Conclusion Section is not exhaustive. I suggest to improve it.
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in rearranged Conclusion Section.
Once again I would like to thank you very much for all comments and suggestions that gave us opportunity to improve our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Adam Stolarski
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper “materials-1124568-v1” entitled “Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system” contains original experimental contribution to the study of Reinforced Concrete (RC) with an innovative diagonal truss-shaped reinforcement. It includes an experimental program of large-scale RC flexural beams under four-point loading scheme. It is an interesting article for the researchers and could conclude to novel and helpful remarks for the practicing engineers for the use and the effectiveness of non-conventional reinforcement. However, there are several shortcomings that have to be amended. It is strongly recommended to the authors to ameliorate their manuscript taking into account the following suggestions for improvements and implement the modifications in the revised version of the paper.
- The examined truss-shaped reinforcement system includes diagonal components that are placed at the shear-critical spans of the RC beams. Thus, these diagonal parts would contribute significantly to the shear resistance of the RC beam. However, shear has no examined at all in this experimental study, although the main advantage of this reinforcement could be focused on this action and promote the objectives of this study. Recent experimental studies have addressed the advantages of continuous rectangular spiral reinforcement in RC beams with diagonal components as shear reinforcement and it is suggested these works to be considered, since promising results have been derived.
- Introduction is very brief containing several general statements. The state-of the-art does not adequately highlight the gaps in the existing literature that the current study is trying to fill. This introductory part is recommended to be improved providing more convincing motivations of this research. More references are definitely required. The research contributions should also be highlighted in the revised manuscript.
- The relationship between the text and the figures is weak; the text leads the readers to believe that the figures will provide the desired information and/or clarification of the work done but the figures do not provide this. Discussion and further commentary of the figures should be provided. The usefulness of some figures should also be reconsidered since there are some rather unnecessary repetitions in the cracking patterns of the beams. Further, quality of figures with diagrams requires substantial improvement. X- and y-axes of these diagrams should have the same scale and maximum values for comparison reasons.
Author Response
Professor Adam Stolarski, Ph. D, D. Sc.
Military University of Technology
Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy
2 gen. Sylwestra Kaliskiego Street
00-908 Warsaw-49, Poland
12 March, 2021
MDPI AG
materials-1124568
Publication Title: Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system
Journal Title: Materials
Manuscript Authors: Adam Stolarski, Jacek Zychowicz
To Reviewer 3:
I would like to thank you very much for insightful review of our manuscript. I am sure that it influents positively for final shape of our manuscript. We have considered and have taken into account all of your remarks during correction of the manuscript as follow. Moreover, all changes have been marked in the manuscript in the form of tracking changes.
Comment 1
The examined truss-shaped reinforcement system includes diagonal components that are placed at the shear-critical spans of the RC beams. Thus, these diagonal parts would contribute significantly to the shear resistance of the RC beam. However, shear has no examined at all in this experimental study, although the main advantage of this reinforcement could be focused on this action and promote the objectives of this study. Recent experimental studies have addressed the advantages of continuous rectangular spiral reinforcement in RC beams with diagonal components as shear reinforcement and it is suggested these works to be considered, since promising results have been derived.
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been introduced in Subsection 1.2 Lns 176 - 214 and in Subsection 7.1 Lns 588 – 615. The description of the bibliography on spiral reinforcement in RC beams has been included.
Comment 2
Introduction is very brief containing several general statements. The state-of the-art does not adequately highlight the gaps in the existing literature that the current study is trying to fill. This introductory part is recommended to be improved providing more convincing motivations of this research. More references are definitely required. The research contributions should also be highlighted in the revised manuscript.
- Has been taken into account. An additional description has been included in rearranged Introduction and Conclusion Section.
Comment 3
The relationship between the text and the figures is weak; the text leads the readers to believe that the figures will provide the desired information and/or clarification of the work done but the figures do not provide this. Discussion and further commentary of the figures should be provided. The usefulness of some figures should also be reconsidered since there are some rather unnecessary repetitions in the cracking patterns of the beams. Further, quality of figures with diagrams requires substantial improvement. X- and y-axes of these diagrams should have the same scale and maximum values for comparison reasons.
- Has been taken into account as much as possible. In the authors' opinion, keeping the current description of figures showing the cracking patterns is purposeful, because it shows the sequence of crack development. However, an additional comment has been introduced in rearranged Section 7. New Figures 5 and 6 with suggested changes have been introduced.
Once again I would like to thank you very much for all comments and suggestions that gave us opportunity to improve our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Adam Stolarski
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments have been addressed and the paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Adam Stolarski
19 March, 2021
MDPI AG
materials-1124568
Publication Title: Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system
Journal Title: Materials
Manuscript Authors: Adam Stolarski, Jacek Zychowicz
To Reviewer 1:
I would like to thank you very much for insightful review of our resubmitted manuscript.
Comment
Review Report 2 without additional comments.
Sincerely,
Adam Stolarski
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised paper “materials-1124568-v2” entitled “Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system” has extensively been revised and improved. The efforts performed by the Authors to consider all the recommendations and to respond to all the criticisms of the previous review are greatly appreciated. Thus, the revised paper is suggested to be accepted for publication without further re-review.
Some minor revisions are suggested for the final amelioration of the article:
- The tensile strain at the maximum tensile strength (Rm) of the used steel bars could be added in Table 2, if measured.
- Ductility of the tested beams in terms of displacement (ratio of the ultimate displacement to the displacement at yield) could be presented and discussed.
- Photographs of Figs 7 and 9 could be trimmed from the up and from the bottom in order to be cut their useless parts and to be reduced.
Author Response
Adam Stolarski
19 March, 2021
MDPI AG
materials-1124568
Publication Title: Experimental investigations of reinforced concrete beams with innovative truss-shaped reinforcement system
Journal Title: Materials
Manuscript Authors: Adam Stolarski, Jacek Zychowicz
To Reviewer 3:
I would like to thank you very much for insightful review of our resubmitted manuscript. I am sure that it influents positively for final shape of our manuscript. We have considered and have taken into account all of your remarks during second correction of the manuscript as follow. Moreover, all changes have been marked in the manuscript by the red color of the font.
Comment 1
The tensile strain at the maximum tensile strength (Rm) of the used steel bars could be added in Table 2, if measured.
- The tensile strain at the maximum tensile strength of the used steel bars was not measured. The information on the use of reinforcing steel with the highest ductility of class C has been introduced in Subsection 4.1.
Comment 2
Ductility of the tested beams in terms of displacement (ratio of the ultimate displacement to the displacement at yield) could be presented and discussed.
- Has been taken into account. An additional descriptions and comments has been provided in Section 5 and Subsections 7.3 and 7.4.
Comment 3
Photographs of Figs 7 and 9 could be trimmed from the up and from the bottom in order to be cut their useless parts and to be reduced.
- Has been taken into account. Photographs in Figures 7 and 9 have been properly trimmed from the top and bottom.
I would like to thank you very much for all comments and suggestions that gave us opportunity to improve our manuscript.
Sincerely,
Adam Stolarski
