Flexural and Shear Strengthening of Reinforced-Concrete Beams with Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1、 Some important references on the state-of-the art of UHPC are missing, including but not limited to “Application of ultra-high performance concrete in bridge engineering”, “Review of ultra-high performance concrete and its application in bridge engineering”, “A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part I. Raw materials and mixture design”, “A review on ultra high performance concrete: Part II. Hydration, microstructure and properties” and so on.
2、 The paragraph in Lines 91-99 should be a mistake.
3、 It is suggested to quantitatively analyze the influence of different parameters on the load increment of the specimens in Chapters 2 and 3.
4、 Where is Chapter 4?
5、 It is suggested to add some quantitative results in Abstract and Conclusions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. The manuscript has been revised according to the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled lexural and shear strengthening of RC beams with Ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC), is well structured, organized. The figures and tables are well oragized. However, the manuscript has some gaps, so I suggest minor revision and below are the comments.
1) Generally in the introductions they do not report specific notions and graphs, a discussion is made of what is in the literature and how the present work stands. Authors are asked to add a chapter discussing method a, b, etc. reporting the graph and references.
2) Authors are invited to comment on Figures 3 and 4, especially the values above 100%.
3) Are the conclusions reported by the authors present in the trials considered?
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. The manuscript has been revised according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses a highly relevant and contemporary topic in the field of civil engineering, focusing on the use of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete (UHPC) for the strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) beams. The subject is of significant importance due to the increasing need for durable and efficient materials in structural engineering, particularly for rehabilitation and strengthening purposes.
The manuscript, while addressing a significant topic, suffers from issues in readability and coherence. The narrative does not flow smoothly, leaving the reader with a fragmented understanding of the research. This lack of fluidity can hinder the comprehension of the study's objectives and findings. The authors are encouraged to revise the manuscript for a more logical and seamless presentation of ideas.
The paper often resorts to generalizations and lacks the specificity necessary for a technical audience. This vagueness is particularly problematic in the sections discussing the experimental results and findings from the literature review. For a study of this nature, it is crucial to provide detailed technical data and clear explanations to support the research claims.
The manuscript tends to oversimplify complex concepts, which could lead to misinterpretation or underestimation of the challenges associated with the application of UHPC in structural strengthening. The authors should address these simplifications by providing a more nuanced discussion of the challenges and limitations encountered in their research. Additionally, the paper should clearly articulate how it addresses existing gaps in the literature and what new insights it brings to the field.
Given that the manuscript is a review study, it plays a crucial role in synthesizing existing literature and identifying gaps for future research. While the authors have provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on UHPC in strengthening RC beams, the manuscript could be further strengthened by explicitly suggesting areas where additional research is needed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of the figures and graphs in the manuscript requires improvement.
It seems that the end of Introduction, lines 91-99 should be deleted.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. The manuscript has been revised according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presented a review article on the flexural and shear strengthening of RC beams with UHPC. Generally, the manuscript is well-written, with limited unprofessional descriptions. The manuscript can be considered for publication with the following comments addressed:
# References should be added to Figure 20, 24, 25 and 26 if data from literature was used.
# It is also suggested to analyze the failure modes of UHPC-strengthened RC beams.
# How about the influence of UHPC layers on the deformation and cracking patterns of RC beams? Please specify.
# The English language can be further polished.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language can be further polished.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript further. The manuscript has been revised according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood paper. It can be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of the reviewers.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Below are my further comments:
Table 1: New column "Loading systems" includes the variable TP (two point). It is the same in every row. Why is it important? Also in another columns there is many repetitions of the same names one by one. It would be clearer if the table would be corrected acc. to this elements.
Figure 10 seems to be copied from other works. Photos are cited, nevertheless, to do so authors should have proper permisions. Using someone else's photographs in the new article can also be considered plagiarism.
Figure 22 - same problem as above.
It seems that the final part of the article lacks a general discussion pointing out research gaps, as indicated in the reasoning, that require further investigation.
Yours sincerelly,
Reviewer.
Author Response
We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of the reviewers.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs my previous comments have been taken into account or explained, in my opinion the article can be published in its current form.
