Study on Bond Anchorage Behavior of Small-Diameter Rebar Planting under Medium and Low Cycle Fatigue Loads
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The experimental studies and subsequent numerical analyses were based on results from a set of relatively small numbers of specimens. It is worth referring critically to the small numbers of specimens in the conclusions.
2. It is not clearly defined in the article what was the motivation of the Authors to define the conditions of the fatigue test, e.g. amplitude 1 kN or load averange 0.25 Pu.
3. In Fig. 7 c, is it not better to replace the results obtained for rebars with a diameter of 6 mm (10d) with those for rebars with a diameter of 8 mm (10d).
4. If I understood the content of the article correctly, the rebars in the concrete base were mounted with adhesive. I did not find in the article the characteristics of this adhesive material.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Here are some comments on the article:
- The article provides a detailed study on the bonding and anchoring performance of small-diameter rebar under medium and low cycle fatigue load, using field tests and finite element simulation.
- The results provide valuable insights into the behavior of small diameter rebar under fatigue load, particularly about the elastic ultimate load, elastic ultimate slip, and ultimate slip of the planting specimens.
- The article could benefit from more detailed information on the specific materials and techniques used in the field test and finite element simulation to clarify the experimental setup and methodology.
- The conclusion could be more specific about the practical implications of the results, such as in the design and construction of reinforced concrete structures.
- Figure 5. The load-slip curve provides the axes in the same range to better understand the results. The same is applied to Figure 7—the axial strain-load curve of steel bars.
- Validate the simulation model concerning the elasticity, considering the proof stress and strain.
- The manuscript's literature review must be expanded to provide more context and background information. The authors should review and cite more relevant.
- A table detailing the properties of the geomembranes and geotextiles used in the study would be helpful for readers to fully understand the materials' characteristics and how they may have impacted the results.
- A flow chart illustrating the study design and testing procedures would help readers follow the authors' methodology and improve the manuscript's clarity.
- Some of the formulations can be annexures, and also the provision nomenclature of different variables to be provided
- The authors should provide references to guidelines or standards they followed in conducting the testing, such as ASTM or ISO standards. This will help readers understand the testing procedures and compare the results to other published studies.
- The article could also provide more information on the study's limitations and suggestions for future research to provide more context for the findings and potential areas for further investigation.
- The discussion section could benefit from a more detailed analysis and interpretation of the results, particularly concerning existing literature and theories on the behavior of small-diameter rebar under fatigue load.
- The article could also provide more information on the bond-slip constitutive relationship of the adhesive-rebar interface of the small-diameter rebar planting under the medium and low cycle fatigue load to provide more context for the finite element simulation results and the proposed elastic ultimate load calculation formulas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
A review of proofreading would be useful.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
