Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, entitled " Minimum Shear Reinforcement for Reactive Powder Concrete Beams”.  The manuscript is not well structured, as are the Figures and Tables. I suggest major revision and some suggestions are given below.  It just needs to be adjusted editorially, according to the guidelines of the journal.

General Comments:

1) Authors are invited to report equations in the correct format;

2) Formatting of Tables;

3) Images are unreadable;

Specific Comments:

1) Line 145: What standards were used to evaluate mechanical properties?

2) Line 223: Authors are invited to include photos of the real one next to the Crack Pattern (drawn).

3) Include a chapter regarding FE modeling, Authors cannot compare a pattern without first describing it (including in the introduction.)

Useful suggestions in writing the FE chapter:

-) "Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with SRG (Steel Reinforced Grout) composites: Experimental investigation and modeling." Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021): 103047.

-) “Tree-dimensional numerical modeling of RC beam strengthened in shear with steel reinforced grout (SRG)," in Proceedings of the 1st Fib Italy YMG Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, pp. 64-71, Krakow, Poland, May, 2019. 

Author Response

Reviewer' comments are highly appreciated. The response to reviewer' comment as attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a detailed analysis of the shear performance of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC) beams, yet there are areas where the presentation could be significantly improved:

1)    The paper lists many basic theoretical formulas (Formulas 1-10), which are generally considered common knowledge in academic literature and do not require detailed exposition. It is recommended that the authors streamline this section by retaining only those formulas that are crucial for understanding the results and analyses presented.

2)    The manuscript lacks a direct comparison between the results of numerical simulations and experimental data, which is essential for validating the accuracy and rationality of the numerical model. Additional analysis should be provided to demonstrate the consistency or discrepancies between model predictions and experimental observations, with a detailed discussion of any inconsistencies.

3)    While the manuscript mentions the impact of stirrup configurations on the performance of RPC beams, it lacks specific quantitative analysis. A more in-depth investigation is suggested to explore how factors such as stirrup strength, distribution pattern, spacing, and volumetric ratio affect the mechanical behavior of RPC beams. Based on these analyses, new modeling formulas should be proposed that accurately describe how changes in stirrup configuration affect beam performance.

4)    Given the findings from the experiments and numerical analysis, the authors might consider suggesting appropriate modifications to existing design standards (such as ACI 318-2014) to better accommodate the characteristics of RPC beams, especially in light of the interactions between steel fibers and stirrups.

5)    The abstract should be refined to show the primary conclusion of this study. It is suggested to emphasize the research focus of the paper, such as research background, research purpose, research methods, main research work, engineering application significance, etc.

6)    In the introduction section, the author should further highlight the shortage of the previous investigation and the innovation of this study, which is important for a scientific paper.

7)    Please supplement and analyze the relevant research on the development and application of new green building materials to enrich the content of the article. The following references may be beneficial to this work: “Unloading and reloading stress-strain relationship of recycled aggregate concrete reinforced with steel/polypropylene fibers under uniaxial low-cycle loadings. DOI10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104597”. “Hysteresis and damping properties of steel and polypropylene fiber reinforced recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial low-cycle loadings. DOI10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126191”. “Hysteretic deteriorating behaviors of fiber-reinforced recycled aggregate concrete composites subjected to cyclic compressive loadings. DOI10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104087”.

8)    The conclusions need to be refined and improved. The innovative work and main findings of this study should be emphasized in the conclusions. Avoid including excessive details and preferably express the points using numbering, such as 1), 2), 3), etc. It is advisable to limit the conclusions to no more than four concise statements.

Author Response

Reviewer' comments are greatly appreciated. Response to reviewer' comments as attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be published in the present form, but the editorial part such as writing equations must be revised

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The format of the manuscript requires further adjustments following the journal's specifications. This may include adjustments to font size, symbol format, line spacing, citation format, etc., to ensure the submission fully meets the journal's guidelines.