Creep Performance and Life Prediction of Bamboo Scrimber under Long-Term Tension in Parallel-to-Grain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Paper has been substantially improved after resubmission, I only suggest to clearly state the research hypotheses at the end of introduction section
English language is rather fine
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your suggestions on our manuscript and we also appreciate your useful components. The followings are the list of our responses point by point to your valuable comments.
Reviewer 1:
- Paper has been substantially improved after resubmission, I only suggest to clearly state the research hypotheses at the end of introduction section.
Response: Thanks for your advice. We have made modifications as follows and this change can be found L82-96.
In conclusion, researchers have extensively explored the creep behavior of bamboo materials and established empirical and mechanical models for specimen creep deformation based on experimental data. However, these models were only applicable to bamboo specimens under experimental stress levels conditions and couldn’t be extrapolated to the full stress level of bamboo. Therefore, this paper focused on the study of tensile bamboo scrimber, utilized the self-developed multi-functional creep testing equipment to carry out the long-term tension creep tests of bamboo scrimber in parallel-to-grain in an indoor environment, aiming to investigate the failure mode, creep strain, and creep compliance of the long-term creep behavior of bamboo scrimber. A novel method for predicting the creep life of bamboo scrimber is proposed, followed by the establishment of a creep constitutive model and life prediction model for the full stress level under longitudinal tensile load. This paper provides the theoretical guidance for the creep design of bamboo scrimber in engineering structures.
Kind regards,
Caimei Liu
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The manuscript has been revised following the reviewer's comments. Some minor revision is needed:
L105-106: ...are of bamboo scrimber presented in... please change to: ...of bamboo scrimber are presented in...
L125: Title of the standard is not correct, please revise
L448: ....with a few days. please change to: ...within a few days.
Reference no. 24: (Phyllostachy spubences) please change to: (Phyllostachys pubescens)
Reference n0. 25: (Phyllostachys pubescens) please change to: (Phyllostachys pubescens)
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your suggestions on our manuscript and we also appreciate your useful components. The followings are the list of our responses point by point to your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2:
- L105-106: ...are of bamboo scrimber presented in... please change to: ...of bamboo scrimber are presented in...
Response: Thanks for your advice. We have corrected it and this change can be found L108.
- L125: Title of the standard is not correct, please revise.
Response: Thanks for your advice. We have corrected it and this change can be found L128-129.
- L448: ....with a few days. please change to: ...within a few days.
Response: We appreciate your advice. We have corrected it and marked it in red L454.
- Reference no. 24: (Phyllostachy spubences) please change to: (Phyllostachys pubescens)
Response: We appreciate your advice. We have corrected it and marked it in red.
- Reference no. 25: (Phyllostachys pubescens) please change to: (Phyllostachys pubescens)
Response: We appreciate your advice. We have corrected it and marked it in red.
Kind regards,
Caimei Liu
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript regards results on “Creep performance and life prediction of bamboo scrimber under long-term tension in parallel-to-grain”.
Major revision is required:
1. English should be improved and need proof reading
2. The manuscript should be rewritten to make it easier to read.
3. The journal format should be improved. Please rearrange according the journal format:
Introduction, Materials and method, Results, Discussion, Conclusion
3. Abstract:
Please shorten the Abstract about 200-250 words
4. Test:
- L-113: please change to 15mm x 15mm x 200mm
-L115-116: the order is wrong (change to: 0.0092 unit?, 118 MPa, 12.71 GPa)
-L-118: Table 1 : what is the unit of ultimate tensile strength?
- Passive sentence should be used (L156-174)
5. The presentation of results should be improved.
-Some figures are not clear (crowded): Fig. 2 (L-144), Fig. 6 (L-260), Fig. 12 (L-412),Fig.14(c) (L-444)
- L-402: please explain more why finite element simulation was performed
6. Discussion and analysis need to be expanded.
7. Conclusion: please improved to answer the purpose of study
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript does not fulfill the standard requirements for the publication in a high-impact journal. The level of the english language is very poor, the research design is not hypothesis-driven and the overall structure of the manuscript reminds more a technicla report that a scientific paper. There is practically no discussion of the results. Moreover the quality of the figures is very low... Finally, reference list is practically only from Chinese research...
English very difficult to be understood...
