Experimental Study of Perfobond Rib Shear Connector under Lateral Force
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present an experimental study on the perfobond rib shear connector under lateral force.
Overall, the work is interesting and well organized with the presentation of relevant results, however, it still needs some revisions before being considered for publication.
In the abstract, the authors only present the work carried out, however, this part of the paper must contain 5 basic information, namely: should mention scope, motivation, methodology, results and expected impact of the research.
In chapter 1, the authors could have developed a little more the 5 points referred to in the previous paragraph, especially the part referring to the results and expected impact of the research.
In my opinion, chapters 2 and 3 are complete and present the necessary and sufficient information to understand the work.
In chapter 4 the authors present in detail the results obtained, however, the following elements are missing: comparison of results between the various models studied, comparison with results from other authors, comparison with reference values (if any), comparison with other solutions, etc. In other words, benchmarking in this type of work is essential.
In the conclusions, the authors present a summary of the results obtained, however, it would be interesting if they were a little more assertive, clearly referring to valid and non-valid options, including limitations and practical applications.
Author Response
Point 1: Overall, the work is interesting and well organized with the presentation of relevant results, however, it still needs some revisions before being considered for publication.
Response 1: According to the reviewer’s comments, we made the corresponding changes
Point 2: In the abstract, the authors only present the work carried out, however, this part of the paper must contain 5 basic information, namely: should mention scope, motivation, methodology, results and expected impact of the research.
Response 2: According to the reviewer’s comments, the abstract has been improved.
Point 3: In chapter 1, the authors could have developed a little more the 5 points referred to in the previous paragraph, especially the part referring to the results and expected impact of the research.
Response 3: In chapter 1, we add some information about the research. The purpose and expected impact of the research are completed.
Point 4:In my opinion, chapters 2 and 3 are complete and present the necessary and sufficient information to understand the work.
Response 4: No revision
Point 5:In chapter 4 the authors present in detail the results obtained, however, the following elements are missing: comparison of results between the various models studied, comparison with results from other authors, comparison with reference values (if any), comparison with other solutions, etc. In other words, benchmarking in this type of work is essential.
Response 5: The focus of this article is about the bearing capacity and mechanism analysis of Perfobond rib shear connectors considering the lateral force, so some comparative analysis is not carried out. Next, we will write the next article specifically for the questions raised by the reviewer.
Point 6:In the conclusions, the authors present a summary of the results obtained, however, it would be interesting if they were a little more assertive, clearly referring to valid and non-valid options, including limitations and practical applications.
Response 6: The conclusions are modified according the reviewer’s comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper full-scale push-out test on Perfobond rib shear connector are presented and discusse. The results are interesting but the paper lack of important informations. Some improvements are necessary:
GC1) Abstract shuld be improved discussing more in detail about the innovative content of the paper. In the present form seems like just a tests report.
GC2) Typos have been found along the text. Please revise everything.
GC3) As in the previous commment, after the state of the art, is necessary to introduce the present study and to discuss about the innovative aspect introduced in the paper.
GC4) Figure 4. Please include also a sketch with the static scheme of the apparatus.
GC5) The presented results are interesting but it is completely missing a discussion on how these results are important from a design standpoint. Were you able to predict the failure load of the specimens by using theoretical or numerical models? is possible to replicate tests on nomally equal specimens obtain the same (or very close) results?
GC6) How the main design standards can take advantages from your results?
GC7) References seem not adequate. Some mistakes have been found. Moreover there are no paper published on the same topic in the last 10 years . Update the references and the state-of-the-art.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract shuld be improved discussing more in detail about the innovative content of the paper. In the present form seems like just a tests report
Response 1: This question is the same as the question of reviewer 1. According to the reviewer’s comments, we made the corresponding changes.
Point 2: Typos have been found along the text. Please revise everything.
Response 2: Check carefully and correct the typos in the full text.
Point 3: As in the previous commment, after the state of the art, is necessary to introduce the present study and to discuss about the innovative aspect introduced in the paper.
Response 3: In chapter 1, we add some content about the innovative aspect.
Point 4:Figure 4. Please include also a sketch with the static scheme of the apparatus.
Response 4: the apparatus position is marked in figure 4.
Point 5:The presented results are interesting but it is completely missing a discussion on how these results are important from a design standpoint. Were you able to predict the failure load of the specimens by using theoretical or numerical models? is possible to replicate tests on nomally equal specimens obtain the same (or very close) results?
Response 5: The focus of this article is about the bearing capacity and mechanism analysis of Perfobond rib shear connectors considering the lateral force, so the theoretical or numerical analysis is not carried out. Next, we will write the next article specifically for the questions raised by the reviewer.
Point 6:How the main design standards can take advantages from your results?
Response 6: The current design standards are not perfect, and a large amount of test data is needed to support them. The tests we have done can provide data samples for the formulation of design standards.
Point 7:References seem not adequate. Some mistakes have been found. Moreover there are no paper published on the same topic in the last 10 years . Update the references and the state-of-the-art.
Response 7: we add some references and the state of the art.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents an experimental study of shear connector bars as shear connectors in steel-concrete composites, by means of push out tests. While there is no accounting of the underlying mechanics of the system nor analytical modelling, a broad experimental program is detailed which investigates the effects of several variables, and these data will be of interest to the field.
1. My main comment is that nowhere in the paper are quantitative results and comparisons made. The data is only presented in plots, please add relevant tables tabulating the ultimate loads and slips values, at a minimum. Averages could be used for identical specimens.
2. Following the above, please update the qualitative comparisons with quantitative ones – eg A is X% greater than B.
At lines: 148, 173, 216, 217, 223, 231, 260, 279, 297, 307 the following qualitative terms are used:
“better resistance, almost have the same, slightly higher, almost the same, bump up, little changes, definitely increase, lower resistance, better ductility, negligible, very small difference”.
The scientific merit of the paper will be improved if these were quantitative values.
3. As per point 2, the conclusions could be improved with the addition of some quantitative values
4. line 24 – this reference is different format to the rest
5. line 91 – please define PBL
6. line 107 – how was 55MPa measured and were all specimens the same?
7. Figure 6 and onwards – how was the Slip measured (please state in methods)? If there was specimens 1, 2 and 3, why in some cases are all 3 not shown in the plots?
8. Figs 11 and 12 – these have the same caption, what is different about these 2?
9. Fig 25 is out of order, figures should be numbered sequentially
10. Section 4.4.1 – transverse forces are expressed as stress – across what area were these forces converted to stress? i.e. stress in what component?
11. Figs 25, 26, 27 – what specimens are these photos of? please add to captions
Author Response
Point 1:My main comment is that nowhere in the paper are quantitative results and comparisons made. The data is only presented in plots, please add relevant tables tabulating the ultimate loads and slips values, at a minimum. Averages could be used for identical specimens.
Response 1: The ultimate loads and slips values of push-out test specimens are reported in table 2.
Point 2: Following the above, please update the qualitative comparisons with quantitative ones – eg A is X% greater than B.At lines: 148, 173, 216, 217, 223, 231, 260, 279, 297, 307 the following qualitative terms are used: “better resistance, almost have the same, slightly higher, almost the same, bump up, little changes, definitely increase, lower resistance, better ductility, negligible, very small difference”. The scientific merit of the paper will be improved if these were quantitative values.
Response 2: According to reviewer’s suggestion, the qualitative analysis is carried out.
Point 3: As per point 2, the conclusions could be improved with the addition of some quantitative values.
Response 3: According to reviewer’s suggestion, the qualitative analysis is carried out in the section of conclusions.
Point 4:line 24 – this reference is different format to the rest
Response 4: already revised
Point 5:line 91 – please define PBL
Response 5: PBL is replaced with Perfobond
Point 6:line 107 – how was 55MPa measured and were all specimens the same?
Response 6: 55MPa is the strength label, which is not measured
Point 7:. Figure 6 and onwards – how was the Slip measured (please state in methods)? If there was specimens 1, 2 and 3, why in some cases are all 3 not shown in the plots?
Response 7: The slip is measured by the apparatus arranged in figure 4. Due to unsatisfactory test results, some test results are not listed.
Point 8:.Figs 11 and 12 – these have the same caption, what is different about these 2?
Response 8: already revised
Point 9:Fig 25 is out of order, figures should be numbered sequentially
Response 9: already revised
Point 10:Section 4.4.1 – transverse forces are expressed as stress – across what area were these forces converted to stress? i.e. stress in what component?
Response 10: The area of the contact part between the concrete and the steel plate in the lateral direction
Point 11:Figs 25, 26, 27 – what specimens are these photos of? please add to captions
Response 11: already added the captions
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the authors adequately answered the questions and amended the paper according to the proposed recommendations. in my opinion the paper presents conditions to be considered for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper has been improved according to the reviewer comments and it can be accepted in the present form. Regarding question 5, in my opinion is better to present a complete paper with all the informations and no split the paper into two different manuscripts.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments, thank-you.
