A Calculation Model for Determining the Bearing Capacity of Strengthened Reinforced Concrete Beams on the Shear
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this article, the bearing capacity of shear concrete beams reinforced with FCRM has been studied experimentally.
1- The research gap in this field should be illustrated. Also, the necessary categories for past studies should be provided
2- It is better to show the test equipment
3- The numbers and words in the presented tables are out of order and should be polished
4- The limitations of the presented experimental method should be stated and also the causes of the reported errors should be explained
5- The written English language of the article is weak. Also, the full titles of the abbreviations are not stated
6- No explanation has been given about the position of the existing numerical methods in the technical literature
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for your report and interest to our work.
Please see the attachment with the response to comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author,
Manuscript needs some minor corrections.
1. Abstract should be structured in a such a way that, Introduction, Methods, major result and conclusion. Try to reframe it.
2. Introduction part need some content in addition to literature survey.
3. Any reference on cross section size mentioned in Table 1, try to cite it.
4. What is the significance on Fig. 1, it needs some more information in the text.
5. Fig. 4, clarity to be increased.
6. Add few more latest references in the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for your interest and comments, which have been corrected.
Please see the attachment with answers to comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors propose a calculation model for determining the bearing capacity of strengthened reinforced concrete beams on the shear. The study is interesting, but several flaws are presented in the manuscript. For more details, please see below:
(1) Abstract: Please reword the abstract and at least include the following information: objective, methods, results, etc.
(2) 2. Analysis of Previous Research: I am missing a good literature review here. Please consider citing the following references which are relative to your study.
(2-1) Fragility functions for fiber-reinforced polymers strengthened reinforced concrete beam-column joints
(2-2) Automated Detection and Characterization of Cracks on Concrete Using Laser Scanning
(2-3) The effect of tensile reinforcement on the behavior of CFRP strengthened reinforced concrete beams: An experimental and analytical study
(3) 3 Experimental data: please add the images of three kinds of test samples in your study.
(4) 3.2 calculation could be 4.2?
(5) where is the subsection of 5.
(6) please give more cases to verify your model. Also, you can use numerical simulation to verify your model.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for your interest and comments, which have been corrected.
Please see the attachment with answers to comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
1) the ABSTRACT is not clear in defining the topic of the paper and must be rewritten
2) The “analysis of previous research” section must be also re-written, the background about the development of FRCM for structural applications as well as the info about the shear behaviour of FRCM strengthened RC beams is very limited. Authors should significantly improve this aspect.
3) Please acknowledge the main drawback about the use of FRCM materials in building application, the mechanical behaviour under elevated temperature. Please check:
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.026
4) At the end of the “analysis of previous research” the authors should explain which is the novelty of their study.
5) A section about the experimental preparation and test methods is missing, no information is reported about these key aspects. No information is also reported about the material properties. All this info is crucial to better understand the results you are reporting.
6) Please note that several typos are present in the paper, please check the text carefully in your revision.
7) The discussion of the results must be improved (section 3), the authors only reported the experimental values without providing any discussion of them. I also don’t understand why you put the failure modes only in section 4. Please improve section 3, providing a complete overview of what happened experimentally.
8) A comparison of your experimental results with similar studies in the literature is also strongly suggested.
9) The whole section 4 must be re-written; at this stage, it is very difficult to read. In addition, note that most of the results obtained were expected. The novelty of this analysis is not clear.
10) In the conclusions, the authors should explain the significance and shortcomings of the research work, instead of repeating the results obtained before.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for your interest and comments, which have been corrected.
Please see the attachment with answers to comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All the requested modifications have been made. The article is acceptable as it is and can be published in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for Your revision.
Please see the attachment response to comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
My concerns have been addressed by the authors, and the current version of the manuscript can be considered to be accepted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for Your revision.
Please see the attachment response to comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Analyzing the authors' answers, I found that the authors did not respond concretely to all the mentioned comments. In addition, some additions were requested both in terms of additional info in the literature review (point 3) and in terms of improving certain sections and clarifying some procedures (point 7), and the authors not taking these tips into account. Therefore, following these findings, the decision remains the same with the mention of responding promptly and concisely to previously unresolved comments. Again, the english writing must be improved. Several parts of the paper are difficoult to read.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank You for your interest in our work and the in-depth analysis of the article. Thanks to You, the work has been improved.
Comprehensive answers were given to all the comments of the reviewer, or corrections were made, which, in our opinion, are relevant. All comments that could be corrected, and those that could not be corrected in full, were partially corrected.
Point 7 stated that the destruction criteria determined the level of the destructive load, which was then compared with the calculation results. As indicated, the procedure has already been published, and their re-publication does not comply with the journal`s policy.
The authors and a relevant specialist with a B2 level certificate have checked the English language.
The team of authors hopes that You will find our answers and comments in satisfactory.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is significantly improved following the review process. The authors responded to all the reviewers' comments, therefore, I recommend that the paper be published in the current form. Of course, the final decision belongs to the Editor.
