Long-Term Loading Experimental Research of Prestressed Glulam Beams Based on Creep Influence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors focus on a really interesting for me problematics, namely long-term loading (creep) of prestressed glulam beams. The article requires modifications or additions (especially of relevant literature). However, the obtained results can in any case be beneficial from the point of view of a background for further research and application use.
I would like to make corrections and additions.
Formal deficiencies:
- low graphic quality of Figure 9,
- a huge amount of errors like spaces (e.g. line 32, 53, 63, ...), which really spoils the quality of the presented article,
- inappropriately entered formulas, including their description on pages 12 and 13,
- inappropriately used tense in the paragraph on lines 115 to 122; this deficiency also occurs in other parts of the article,
- non-compliance with the structure (template), see lines 60, 61, 72, 95, 113, 129, 130, 170, 177, 217, 266, ..., 348,
- references are not compiled according to the template,
- where is the official discussion!,
- what is the meaning of the sentence on line 352 (When the number of steel wires is constant, the total stress of wire decreases by ...), the same applies to the sentence on line 364 (The order hand, ...),
- nonsensical sentences on lines 96 to 99,
- inappropriate description in the paragraph from line 76, while this problem also occurs in other parts of the article (I recommend a complete check!).
Missing details:
- DOI is missing for articles in the literature for easier searching,
- insufficient amount of literature (12 sources including 4 standards); where are the foreign sources (!!!), including at least some books on the creep of (structural) wood or on rheology in general, which are available in sufficient quantity,
- insufficient description of the input material in the paragraph from line 62 (type of larch, etc.),
- how the short-term experiments were carried out? (line 86),
- what were the climatic conditions during the long-term experiments?,
- what is the degree of tightness (r or r2 after data fitting)?,
- formulate application use or other suitable follow-up research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presented a very engineering technical research on the static bending test of glued laminated beams. Their findings may have reference value for the design of wooden buildings. The readability of the manuscript and the experimental design of the research are reasonable. The manuscript can be suggested for publication after revision. Here are some suggestions for the authors,
1. The abstract part is too verbose and lacks research significance.
2. The purpose of this study is not clearly stated in the introduction.
3. Insufficient literature research in the related fields leads to a lack of references. Followings are suggested for citing.
“Dziurka, D Derkowski, A, Dukarska, D. et al. The Effect of Periodic Loading of Glued Laminated Beams on Their Static Bending Strength, MATERIALS,15(11), 3928”
“JR Tian, ZQ Cao, SP Qian YB Xia, JX Zhang, YQ Kong, KC Sheng, Y Zhang, Y Wan, J Takahashi, Improving tensile strength and impact toughness of plasticized poly(lactic acid) biocomposites by incorporating nanofibrillated cellulose”. Nanotechnol. Rev., 2022,11(1):2469-2482.
“K Sheng, S Zhang, S Qian, C Fontanillo Lopez. High-toughness PLA/bamboo cellulose nanowhiskers bionanocomposite strengthened with silylated ultrafine bamboo-char. Compos. Part B-Eng., 2019, 165: 174-182.”; 4. What is the new point when comparing the research of “The Effect of Periodic Loading of Glued Laminated Beams on Their Static Bending Strength”.
4. What is the new point when comparing the research of “The Effect of Periodic Loading of Glued Laminated Beams on Their Static Bending Strength”.
5. The structural of the manuscript can be improved. Can you rearrange the experiment section, the results section and the discussion section instead of showing them all over the manuscript?
6. Conclusion needs to be refined.
Author Response
Please see the attachment .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The publication submitted for review is very interesting. It is generally concerned with materials or structural components manufactured from pre-glued timber. Different wood-based materials, which result from glueing wood together in different layouts - longitudinally, transversely or lengthwise using a multi-joint - are used in the construction industry. These materials include glulam beams, CLT boards or boards of other structures. The authors rightly point out that creep is an essential aspect of permanent loading. Creep depends on many factors, both material and environmental. Overall the paper is well written. The tables are correctly described, and the figures and photos make it easy to see the research process. Minor additions are required:
- introduction: it introduces the topic a little too briefly. In addition, the introduction should not contain a description of the research but indicate the purpose of the study or present the research hypothesis;
- research methodology - although this is not the main aim of the research, the authors should better characterise the research material. It is essential to state the characteristics of the wood used, the flexural strength and elasticity of the beams tested;
- some parts are misplaced;
- the literature needs sorting out (there are different ways of citing).
The conclusions, however, are consistent with the paper's subject.
Author Response
Please see the attachment .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Even after the revision, the article requires adjustments, especially of a structural nature, and corrections of errors (gaps) or tenses. Notwithstanding the results are interesting, unfortunately, I do not consider their presentation to be optimal even after corrections.
There are still a considerable number of errors of the type of gaps (they occur in addition or missing at all), as well as tenses (e.g. the paragraph from line 112, line 128, etc.), which really spoils the quality of the presented article. After all, you cannot want the Editorial staff of the journal to correct it!
What is the meaning of the sentence on line 368 in the context of the paragraph, i.e. "The other hand, the greater the value of θ."?
A discussion is not a discussion. Why not to choose the "Results and Discussion" form? You already discuss the results in the "Results" chapter, although without using any literature.
Supplementing the literature is still not optimal, of the 5 supplemented sources, 3 were recommended by the other opponent. You used the last literary source (17, norm) already on page 3, no other source after that. For example, the missing reference on line 178: "Previous studies (!!!) have shown that when ...".
You preferred to completely remove the things that required more complex adjustments, like how the short-term experiments were done, but Ok, that is not that important. At least you should have given bending parameters instead of compressive strength and modulus on lines 60-61, although I understand that you are reinforcing the tensile zone with steel wires.
The ordering (numbering) of chapters and subsections does not really make sense: 2, 2.1, 3, 2.2, 3, 3.1, 3, ..., again 3, ...
You misunderstood the Degree of tightness (r or r2 after data fitting). It is related to Figure 9.
In the description of formula no. 5, you do not describe the quantities Ep, Ap, Em, Im.
There could be found more shortcomings, but these are fundamental, even if they do not actually related to the methodological character at all, but to the formal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
