Experimental Investigation on Shear Behavior of Dune Sand Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment: The work is interesting but lacks an adequate experimental analysis. In addition, some things about the manuscript are pointed out.
1 - The terms "natural sand" and "dune sand" overlap in this context. The natural sand that the article refers to is "river sand". What I mean is that both sands are natural, but one is from a river and one is from a dune. These terms must be corrected throughout the manuscript;
2 - There are no conclusions and indications about what was verified in the results anywhere in the abstract. Therefore, the abstract needs to be rewritten.
3 - In the introduction (second paragraph), most references are to work on materials and not on structures, as is the case with this manuscript.
4 – Why there are result discussion in section 2.1? Lines 122-126.
5 – Table 3 is very confusing. The note is ever worse.
6 – The nomenclature of the beans is VERY confusing. There is a need to use another form of nomenclature to indicate the samples. This distracts the reader from trying to understand what is being indicated by each property.
7 – in Table 5 it needs to be clearer in your table which independent variable is being analyzed. And so separate the groups. For example. A column after “BEAM” column with the independent variable, as DS%, or clear span, or stirrup, or strength.
8 - In figure 5 it is very difficult to indicate any difference in cracks between samples. The shear, compression and tension cracks should be indicated with a different color, so that the reader can identify if there is any specificity between the cracking pattern. Na
9 – Line 302 the number of the are missing.
10 – Concretes with different strengths are not comparable. Table 2 presents the % of replacement… So, where are the dosage of different strengths?
11 – in Figure 6 A, the sample M-30-1.4-0.252 reaches around 900kN, but the SAME SAMPLE in Figure 6 b reaches 420kN. How is this possible?
12 – The manuscript topic is presented in section 4.4 and only 10 line of discussion of this main topic?. Another independent variables are not the topic. Why is this showed in the paper?
13 – The numerical prediction model can be contested since it is based on experimental results that need to be discussed.
14 – The experimental data presented in discussion/conclusion need to be expanded and revaluated. The main topic is the quantity of DS in the matrix. Steel rebar configuration was not available comparing the % of DS. In this way, it should be removed from manuscript.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable and careful comments. All of the following comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
All revisions to this article can be viewed by opening the "Review - All Marks" section of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an experimental work which could be useful for readers, however there are some points which should considered before its publication as follow:
1- Is the number of specimens are enough to have a distinct conclusions?
2- The scattering of results could be illustrated well.
3-According to the Fig 8, why differences are high for higher Vu?
4- Limitations of works could be stated clearly in the text.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable and careful comments. All of the following comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Please see the attachment. All revisions to this paper can be viewed by opening the "Review - All Marks" section of the revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors utilized dune sand for RC deep beams. The paper is generally good but it needs improvement. Followings should be carried out before acceptance:
The abstract should contain important results of the study.
How this recycled materials for this study is obtained?
Ttile should mention pervous concrete
What is chemical properties of cement
Novelty is not clear. Very same studies are already exists. What is the difference?
The reason for selecting design mixture should be added.
Compare your results with existing studies
Other types of recycled aggreagete can also be mentioned such as glass powder, marble and coal bvottom ash in the line of 42-43. For this purpose the following studies can be add: influence of replacing cement with waste glass on mechanical properties of concrete; use of recycled coal bottom ash in reinforced concrete beams as replacement for aggregate; concrete containing waste glass as an environmentally friendly aggregate: a review on fresh and mechanical characteristics; mechanical behavior of crushed waste glass as replacement of aggregates;flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beams using waste marble powder towards application of sustainable concrete; Effects of Waste Powder, Fine and Coarse Marble Aggregates on Concrete Compressive Strength
What is the reinforcement ratios of beams? Balanced ratio?
Why authors terminate the tests earlier before full collapse?
Why the sitffness of bemas are different?
The importance of recycling materials to overcome enviermental prbolem should be added to introduction using: improvement in bending performance of reinforced concrete beams produced with waste lathe scraps; performance assessment of fiber-reinforced concrete produced with waste lathe fibers; performance evaluation of fiber-reinforced concretes produced with steel fibers extracted from waste tire; performance evaluation of fiber-reinforced concretes produced with steel fibers extracted from waste tire; composition component influence on concrete properties with the additive of rubber tree seed shells; normal-weight concrete with improved stress–strain characteristics reinforced with dispersed coconut fibers
Add some summary for conclucision
Add recent studies on this subject to introduction. There are many studies on the introduction for this topic.
Conclusion should be improved. The recommendation consdiering all test should be given for engineers.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable and careful comments. All of the following comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Please see the attachment. All revisions to this paper can be viewed by opening the "Review - All Marks" section of the revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have submitted a well prepared paper on the interesting topic of the Shear behavior of dune sand reinforced concrete deep beams. The paper is clearly presented and provides interesting results. This study is valuable for the practical engineering. However, the following comments are provided to assist the authors to improve the paper:
1) The article's purpose should be clarified in detail, why this study could be beneficial, and a more in-depth conclusion in applications should be provided.
2) Why is the dune sand replacement rate 0%, 30%, and 50%? The author should have references and explanations.
3) Kindly provide the images of dune sand (DS) and fly ash (FA) used in the present study.
4) Table 5, please re-check the fourth set of numbers of test specimen names versus stirrup ratio (last column).
5) Please define abbreviations in table format for clarity.
6) The description in Lines 423-424 (ACI 318 predicted the results most accurately) of the comparison of experimental data and predictions can refer to the literature: doi.org/10.3390/su14169856.
7) Conclusions: the author should further explain this research's construction application limitations. Please describe in the conclusion.
Thank you for considering my opinion. I encourage the authors to keep on working to improve the revised manuscript.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable and careful comments. All of the following comments have been addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.
Please see the attachment. All revisions to this paper can be viewed by opening the "Review - All Marks" section of the revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made the changes indicated in the first review.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper deserves to be published
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the revised version. The authors have addressed all the concerns of the reviewer and the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
