Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper features an important experimental activity that deserves a better presentation since the paper should be improved by addressing the following comments leading to a major revision.

1.      The introduction misses any reference to numerical methods to predict corrosion, which are widely used nowadays. For example, check and cite at least the following papers

·         10.3390/infrastructures6020025

·         10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.08.006

 

2.      Experimental program: The authors should declare whether or not it was noticed the formation of pits on the rebars, which are responsible for heavy degradation of rebar strength and ductility.

3.      Table 4. The units of load are not clear. What is tf? We usually use tons or kN

4.      Analysis of results and conclusions: The authors explain that over a certain threshold of corrosion, the capacity definitely drops and cyclic loading worsens this condition. However, the authors do not explain why. In my opinion, this is due to the worsening of bond conditions that are not evaluated in the experimental program. I warmly invite the authors the better discuss this aspect.

Regarding this fact, a small discussion about low cycle fatigue could help the understanding of premature failure in case of cyclic loading. Please make reference to 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.787.771 for what concerns this issue.

 

Formal issues

5.      Abstract: “ RC specimens induced: the 1. entire area” possibly remove “the”

6.      Abstract: “with three different degree of corrosion” should be “degrees”

7.      Abstract “the yield and ultimate strength was kept” should be “were kept”

8.      Load carrying should be load-carrying

9.      Ordinary portland should be “Portland”

10.  The quality of figures must be improved since most text cannot be easily read. (e.g. (figs 7-9-10)

There are many other spelling and grammar issues that must be carefully checked by the authors through a native English speaker revision

many times plural and singular are wrong

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has improved since the comments were addressed carefully.