Finite Element Analysis of Precast Concrete Deck-Steel Beam-Connection Concrete (PCSC) Connectors Using Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) for the Composite Beam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author designed push-out experiment to study the mechanical properties of PCSC connectors, and established a THREE-DIMENSIONAL FE model to evaluate the failure mode, failure process and interface degradation process of the push-out specimens. In addition, the parameter sensitivity analysis is carried out to provide reference for the engineering design of PCSC connector. The results were well exposed and well represented as well as their analysis and interpretation except that more details are lacking on the approach adopted by the authors. Therefore, I will ask the authors for some observations and questions: 1. Line43-44, "ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC)" was already defined in the abstract and does not need to be defined again. 2. Line170-171, What does SCM mean? Please explain it clearly. 3. In Table 1, please explain clearly what is the difference between specimen M1R1H1 and M1R2H1? 4. Please supplement the mix ratio tables for precast concrete and UHPC for better clarity of the test design. 5. The names of the parts represented by each part of the specimen should be indicated in Figure 1. 6. Line 549-552, Why does the elastic shear stiffness decrease as the area of the stud increases? 7. Line 661-663, Why the ductility of the normal concrete specimens was better than that of the UHPC specimens? 8. Line 693-696, Why is the PC70's maximum interfacial slips smaller than the PC60's?

Author Response

Thank you for the careful review. The comments were insightful, which enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

The language of the full text has been checked and revised. Changes were marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- Very comprehensive work. Highly recommended for publication

- Proposed recommendation that can be useful for practical application.

Author Response

Thank you for the careful review. The language of the full text has been checked and revised. Changes were marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting. The scientific problem is actual. The experimental investigation is valuable. The paper in the presented form cannot be published. Some revisions should be made to increase the scientific level, see detailed comments specified below:

- the scale of the charts 6 should be made uniform

- Figure 12 requires improvement in quality, it is difficult to read

The bibliography is unacceptable. You should refer to the work of other researchers, not your own.

Author Response

Thank you for the careful review. The comments were insightful, which enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx