Strengthening of Reinforced Concrete Columns Using Ultra-High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Jacket
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The English should be polished further, especially in the introduction part.
2. The capital letter should be listed in some tables.
3. Please give a complete figure of specimen after UHPFRC jacket.
4. The curing condition is not so good.
5. The conclusion part should be presented briefly.
English language should be polished more.
Author Response
Greetings the answers are listed in the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The research topic of this study is highly intriguing for both researchers and professionals in the field. The proposed manuscript aligns well with the scope of the journal. However, certain modifications and clarifications are required from the authors. While the title accurately represents the content of the manuscript, the abstract could provide a more realistic reflection of the study's substance.
Overall, the organization and structure of the manuscript are appropriate, and the paper is well written and suitable for publication in this journal. It is worth noting that the introduction section may be somewhat brief and could be strengthened by including additional references.
The paper effectively outlines its objectives, and the discussion is well-conducted, with results and discussions closely tied to relevant literature. The literature review is comprehensive and well-executed, although it would be advantageous to include more recent references in the introduction.
In the final paragraphs of the introduction, the authors briefly explain the core of their research. However, it is crucial for the authors to clearly state their unique contribution and elaborate on the novelty of their work compared to previous studies. The authors should provide a more explicit demonstration of the novelty of their research.
The significance of the work is evident, considering the extensive data analysis conducted. This study has the potential to make a significant impact in the field. To enhance the paper, it is important to improve the presentation of statistical interpretations of the analytical data. Specifically, conducting an ANOVA analysis to test the influence of variables would be beneficial.
In terms of language, the work is well-presented. It is interesting and well-executed, with a concise presentation. There are no contentious or questionable arguments in the manuscript as a whole. The research methodology is clearly outlined, ensuring replicability by other researchers.
One notable area for improvement is the extent of novelty or the primary novelty of this work in relation to previous research. The authors should exert additional effort to demonstrate the substantial contribution of their study in the research area. Once again, I recommend expanding the introduction section by incorporating a few additional references.
Author Response
Greetings,
the answers are listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- The reference [13], page 2, is displayed for the first time without having appeared the references [10], [11] and [12].
- Figure 2 should indicate with letters (a), b), and so on, the different diagrams, indicating in the title what it is (cross section, longitudinal section...). There are errors or some measurements are simply missing in the cross sections of Figure 2.
- The institutions to which the researchers belong are not listed.
- The IS should be used for the units, expressing the symbols well (superscripts as in m3, m2).
- The same format should be used for references in the text to Figures, Tables, Photographs, etc., as in the text.
- Align the lines in the same way in the tables (Table 1, Table 8).
- Photo 3 hides lines of text in the upper paragraph.
- The format of the photo captions must be the same.
- The curves obtained in the tests (Figures 3, 5) are described in percentage terms with respect to the control column, but the phenomenology of the test is not explained; it is not explained why these results are obtained.
- The values of the ultimate deflections in Table 11 do not correspond to those shown in the curves in Figures 3a), 3b)....
- Table 14 is mentioned in line 229, when there is no such table.
- Titles do not appear on the vertical axes of the Figures 6, 7.
- In general, the conclusions are obvious, with no explanation given as to why these conclusions are obtained.
- The tests performed do not really contribute anything new to the state of the art.
The expressions of many sentences should be improved, as in lines 15, 16, 31, 35, 50, 51, and so on.
Author Response
Greetings,
the answers are listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The subject of the paper has a high research relevance. The experimental investigations show some interesting results. The analysis of results is, however, insufficient.
Rather than chemical properties of concrete components, following aspects should be more in focus: workability properties of fresh UHPC, time-dependent behaviour of plain concrete of column (core) and strengthening cover such as creep and shrinkage differences between core and jacket concrete, casting details, loading rate of teh experiment etc.)
To discuss the effects caused by surface treatment methods, the hypothesis of the experimental programm is to be better explained in chapter 2. Several questions remain unanswered after the discussion part in my opinion:
Is the only aspect of variation of grooving direction the increase in specific net surface of the column or shrinkage limitation aspects more in focus? With which model or concept is the distance between horizontal grooves determined? Is the number of strengthened faces varying to show the role of confinement?
The introduction part required major editting.
Author Response
Greetings,
the answers are listed in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be published.
It is OK
Author Response
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting.
However, the answers of the authors to my original comments and the revised manuscript show that the experiments have not been completely analyzed or conducted yet.
I kindly suggest the authors to summarize and present their experimental data more comprehensively, as soon as the research work is accomplished. The paper must include some engineering / analytical aspects in terms of the design or the analysis of experiments.
A major revision is still required in terms of grammar and clarity of the sentences.
Author Response
Hello, the answers are given in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors discuss in the revised paper the increasing number of strengthened sides with the increase of confinement. The columns are confined (triaxial stress state in concrete core) only if the columns are strengthened on four sides. Before that, the increase in the ultimate load capacity is only caused by the increase in the cross-section area. The soundness of results can be calculated for one-, two- and three-sided UHPFRC-strengthening with known equations for cross-section analysis in case of good bond in the NSC-UHPFRC interface. By comparing these results with the four-sided specimens, the confinement can be estimated.
In my opinion, the paper should include such structural aspects e.g. comparison between calculated and experimental results.
Some Examples of required editting of English language are given below. The authors can also use several useful editting tools such as Grammarly.
page1, line 23: ",The results showed that. All strengthened specimens have a brittle failure,ultimate load capacity of RC columns strengthened using UHPFRC jacket in the case of vertical grooving (VG) showed better results than columns with horizontal grooving (HG) and columns without grooving."
Check punctuation and comprehesiveness --> ". The results show a brittle failure for all strengthened specimens. The UHPFRC-reinforced RC columns with vertical grooving (VG) showed higher ultimate load capacity compared to columns with horizontal grooving (HG) and columns without grooving (NG)."
Table 1: Use "Number of strengthened sides" istead of "Number of side strengthen"
Page 15, lines 320-326: Consider editting.
Page 16, line 330-332: revise "Ultimate load carrying capacity RC columns strengthened using UHPFRC jacket is greatly affected jacket thickness, regardless of interface treatment methods or strengthened sides of column as shown in Figure (7)." into "Ultimate load carrying capacity of RC columns strengthened using UHPFRC jacket is greatly affected by jacket thickness, regardless of interface treatment methods or number of strengthened sides of column as shown in Figure (7)."
Author Response
Greetings the answers are listed in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 4 Report
The topic of the paper is quite interesting. The methodology has some flaws as mentioned in the previous comments and can be enhanced or discussed in the paper (not only in the comments to reviewer).
English requires editing in terms of grammar, correctness and clarity before publishing to fit the standards of the journal.
Author Response
Greetings the answers are listed in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
