Experimental and Parametric Analysis of Pull-Out Resistance of Notched T-Perfobond Connectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper is interesting, but I have some questions/comments.

1. Purpose of the paper and its significance should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction to help improve the discussion of results.

2. Some figures require an improvement in graphic quality by increasing the resolution to at least 600 dpi and increasing the font size.

3. More details should be provided regarding the experimental tests.

4. What method is used for the physical joining between the steel beam and the T-perfobond rib? How is this joining accounted for in the finite element model and simulation?

5. The finite element model verification (see section 4.6) is questionable. Which exactly is the parameter(s) being compared as experimental numerical value and simulated numerical value? Figure 13 gives values for the normal stress, but how do they relate and compare to the numerical values from the simulation? In the value levels grids, the parameters "DAMAGEC" and "S, S33" appear, which it is not known what they represent and in which units they are measured. At first glance, the numerical values are not comparable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the experimental and parametric analysis of the pull-out resistance of a notched T-perfobond connector. The main contribution of the paper is investigating the effect of the connectors’ dimensions and material properties on the pull-out resistance and then proposing an improved calculation method for the pull-out performance.

The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some minor issues need to be addressed before it can be published.

1. The novel of this study could not be described clearly and persuasively in the introduction part. Please rewrite paragraphs 5 and 6 in the introduction part.  
2. Instead of proving the steel fiber image in Fig. 3, please describe the information about this fiber (shape, size, material properties, and qualities).
3. In Fig. 6, there is no explanation about load-separation differences between T-perfobond and notched T-perforbond. Please add the explanation.
4. There are huge differences between experimental and FEM curves in Fig. 14. Thus, the authors should change the content of the conclusion (2). Do authors have any ideas to change the boundary conditions in the simulation to account for the deformations. 
5. A detailed parametric study was conducted. And in the conclusion (3) paragraph, the authors mentioned that “A total of 54 parameter simulations indicate that increasing the dimensions of the 509 flange and perfobond rib, as well as the strength of the concrete and perfobond rib, 510 can significantly enhance the pull-out resistance of notched T-perfobond shear con-511 nectors.” However, it seems that the most important factor is the strength of the concrete. Please describe clearly the impact differences between conectors’ dimensions and material properties for expressing the importance of this study.
6. There are some blurry and small texts in images and graphs. Please fix them.
7. The grammar errors and mistyping words were found. Please check the manuscript carefully again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The grammar errors and mistyping words were found. Please check the manuscript carefully again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The authors have corrected and supplemented the manuscript in accordance with most of my comments. I accept the corrections made.