Numerical Investigation on Novel Shear Connectors in Prefabricated Composite Beams

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The work is interesting, and the manuscript is prepared in standard form with an adequate description of the results and findings. The reviewer could suggest several corrections based on the following comments:

1. What did the proposed horizontally arranged shear stud serve to accomplish?
2. How many specimen groups were created for the push-out test, and how many samples were present in each group?
3. How did the prefabricated studs' ultimate load capacity and ductility compare to those of regular studs?
4. Was there a good match between the modeling and push-out test results?
5. What was the study's finding in terms of the effectiveness of orthogonal testing in FEM modeling?
6. What was the purpose of the shear studs' push-out test?
7. What kind of grouping was used for the push-out test's sample size?
8. How many models were created, and what software was used to perform the finite element method (FEM) analysis?
9. What causes the difference between prefabricated studs and regular studs in terms of ultimate capacity and testing ductility?
10. What role does the orthogonal testing approach play in the investigation of shear studs?
11. According to the outcomes of the numerical simulating, what is the ideal combination of design parameters for prefabricated studs?

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Peer Review Report

Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-2384780

Title: Analytical investigation on novel shear connectors in prefabricated composite beam

 

Authors: Chengjun Li, Zhixiang Zhou, Huan Wang, Yanmei Gao, Liang Fan

The subject of the article is within scope of the journal. The subject presented in the manuscript is very interesting and the manuscript is quite good written. I recommend the paper for major revision. Below you can find my main remarks about the manuscript.

 

Major comments:

1)      The literature review presented in the manuscript in the Introduction section is very poor. The authors should performed much deeper literature review. In Scopus database there is at least 27 publication related to “finite element method” and “prefabricated shear stud”. The authors should describe in their Introduction application of the finite element method for investigations of prefabricated shear studs.

2)      Read carefully the Instructions for Authors: “We do not have strict formatting requirements, but all manuscripts must contain the required sections: Author Information, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions, Figures and Tables with Captions, Funding Information, Author Contributions, Conflict of Interest and other Ethics Statements.” The sections of the manuscript should be rewritten.

3)      The physical quantities in Table 1 have no units.

4)      The authors should describe the finite elements used in the ABAQUS software in more details by giving equations, figures etc.

5)      What is the mathematical description of the problem the authors solved using ABAQUS software?

6)      Description of the boundary conditions should be improved by giving a figure with all conditions (together with loads) described.

7)      Editing of the equations should be improved. Furthermore, all the equations should be numbered.

Minor comments:

8)      Do not introduce and use abbreviations in the abstract.

9)      It should be a space between the number and unit, e.g., “500 mm” instead of “500mm”. Read carefully the whole manuscript.

10)  Additionally to Figure 2, it would be useful for readers to present a 3D figure of prefabricated shear stub.

11)  The manner of writing physical quantities should be unified in the whole manuscript (including figure). They should be written using a mathematical font (at least italic font). For instance, take a look at the paragraph before Figure 12 and the title of Figure 12.

 

Conclusion:

The subject is very interesting and the manuscript is quite good written. It is within the scope of the journal. However, it should be improved in my opinion before publication. I recommend the paper for major revision.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors answered all my comments. However, I have one more. These research are not "analytical investigation" for sure. It's more numerical investigation. The only formulas are in the end of the paper. But the results were obtained numerically, not analitycally! The authors need to change the title of the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript for minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc