Seismic Performance of the PVA Fiber Reinforced Concrete Prefabricated Hollow Circular Piers with Socket and Slot Connection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

it is an interesting research work. The paper is well-written and the experiments are well presented.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
    We are honored by your recognition and affirmation of our articles. We will continue to maintain a serious and rigorous attitude in our future work. Finally, we wish you a happy life and successful research!

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper performs experimental and numerical investigations on the seismic performance of hollow PVA fiber concrete piers.  This is a well-written paper that deals with an interesting research question. Additionally, the paper provides results that are significant (e.g. interaction of axial compression ratio and ductility and cumulative) rather than generic findings. Therefore, I can recommend the paper for publication after some minor revisions as follows:

General questions:

·        Why did increasing the axial compression ratio improved energy dissipation but not ductility? Often ductility and energy dissipation are related and improving one would benefit the other .

·        What is the goal of the parametric study? The authors spent some time showing that the numerical model matches the experiment, however, this is expected if the numerical model is calibrated with the experiment. Based on Section 4.3. I have the impression that you are trying to understand the relationship between axial compression and shear span ratios on the pier performance. Therefore, I believe the authors should extend the discussion in Section 4.3 and Conclusion on parametric study findings. For example, how the relationship changes in different parameter ranges, and their interaction with other parameters of the model.

·        A full factorial experimental setup required another specimen with an axial ratio of 0.05 and a shear pan ratio of 3.4. Why did the authors exclude such a specimen from their experiment? Since the numerical models are calibrated with the experiment, how can the authors ensure they correctly capture the interaction of these two parameters in their ABAQS model?

·        Regarding the previous comment, between S2 and S3 both axial and shear span ratio changes so how the authors can isolate the effect of each parameter in their discussions?

 

Specific questions:

·        All acronyms (e.g. PVA, UHPFRC) should be defined when it is used for the first time in the manuscript.

·        Introduction, Lines 53-68, please incorporate findings of the following studies investigating the seismic performance of concrete piers and members using new materials:

o   Tarfan et al. (2019). Probabilistic seismic assessment of non-ductile RC buildings retrofitted using pre-tensioned aramid fiber reinforced polymer belts. 

o   Huang, Q., et al. (2010). Probabilistic seismic demand models and fragility estimates for reinforced concrete highway bridges with one single-column bent. 

·        Section 3.3 Skeleton curve, Lines 254-263. References should be provided on the choices of ultimate load.

·        Lines 275-281. I’m still unclear on how the authors argue that axial ratio in not important for ductility, particularly as S3 has the same axial ratio as S2.

 

·        Conclusion: The authors are encouraged to provide some limitations of their study as well as possible future work. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The sentence: "the recovery ability of prefabricated piers after unloading is also relatively strong" lines 40-41 should be reformulated.

 

The abbreviations used must be specified: RC, FRP line 56, UHPFRC line 61, PVA line 65.

The abbreviation "psbc" on line 64 must be written in uppercase letters.

 

Notations C60, C50 from lines 92, 93, 94, 122, 123, etc. must be explained. Does it refer to concrete classes C50/60 or C60/75?

 

From figure 7, readers will not understand very well what is described in lines 185-189. More details should be given, for example: drawing the grid of lines 10 cm by 10 cm on all 3 samples.

 

The sentence "the failure of specimen S3 was accompanied by the cracking sound of internal reinforcement." from lines 207, 208 should be reformulated. Is failure of the concrete or the reinforcement?

 

The peak value of the loads should been also specified for specimens S1 and S2 (line 235).

 

The table mentioned in line 257 should be number 5.

 

Fig. xx from line 353 is not found in the article.

 

Figure 15 should be uploaded to page 13.

 

In subchapter 4.3. a table is required in which some important comparative values between the displacement and lateral load parameters obtained from the experimental test compared to the theoretical one calculated with the Abaqus software should be entered. The recommended values are: at the elastic limit, at the initiation of cracking, at the yield strength of the reinforcement, at the failure limit. On the last column, the percentage difference found between the two results should be determined.

 

The subchapter from line 437 must be 4.4.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Abbreviations or acronyms have to be explained the first time they are used. thus PVA has to be explained in the abstract (in addition to the explanation in fig. 1 , page 3).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer4:

    We respectfully acknowledge your conscientiousness and rigor. We have explained all the abbreviations that appear for the first time at your suggestion.

    We sincerely wish you all the best in your research!