Experimental Study on Flexural Performance of Regulated Reinforced Glulam Beam after Long-Term Loading
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been prepared carefully. It is interesting and has significant value for scientific interest. Research on the mechanism of failure during bending of glulam beam after long-term loading and the influence of reinforcement on this process is an important issue. Especially that glulam beams are becoming more and more popular in constructions.
I have only a minor comment:
Graphs presented in figures 9 and 10 are hardly legible. The axis and legend captions are not readable. Perhaps, enlarging the charts would be enough.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “sustainability-1168598”. Those comments are helpful for authors to revise and improve our paper. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the referees′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions and we are looking forward to your consideration. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:enclosure of responds to the reviewer’s comments
Sincerely,
Chao yang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Good work and very interesting research perspectives. The paper is well written and presents a consistent structure. The experimental tests are carried out with care. The focus of the Reviewer is on some point that have to be clarified / addressed in order to accept the paper in the Scientific Community.
Introduction
A wider state of the art is suggested also considering parallel research activity and a wider approach in order to address the reader to the focus of Your Research. Some interesting Examples: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03305-w
DOI: 10.3390/ma9050346
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.10.002
General comments
- Further detail of the specimens have to be furnished to the readers. There are no adequate information about the extreme steel plates and the anchors. A technical drawing can be useful to express this point more in detail.
- In addition the setup of the test have to be explained with more care explaining the reason of the disposition of the displacement meter and of the strain gauges.
- Is figure 4 really important in the economy of the work? The addition of more figure showing the failure mode of the specimens is recommended.
- Figure 7 (a) appear with an improper “cut”? The format of figure 7 is different from the others. The same formatting is suggested.
- In the draft the quality of the picture is not so good. It is suggested to improve it uploading in a separate 300 dpi files (pdf o jpg) .
- The expression of percentage, referred to experimental data and widespread in all the paper presents two digits after dot. Considering the “precision” and of the campaign a critical revision of this point is suggested (max 1 digit after dot).
- Please increase the readability of Figure 8-10. Too much Graphs suggest to introduce some tables in order to summarize the results. It is also suggested to add a label that illustrate the variation in ductility and ultimate strength of each test.
- More information about the choice of the prestress value should be furnished. In the conclusion the Authors should explain how the prestress influence the experimental tests. Some design recommendation can be drawn from Your experience?
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “sustainability-1168598”. Those comments are helpful for authors to revise and improve our paper. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the referees′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions and we are looking forward to your consideration. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:enclosure of responds to the reviewer’s comments.
Sincerely,
Chao Yang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- The submission does not contain any aim of the work (hypothesis). I recommend putting the aim at the end of the introduction. (Line 51)
- The cross dimensions of beams are missing. They can be shown in the figure 2. (Line 70)
- The environment of the beams is not described during testing. The 90-days duration of loading is long –term experiment and climate and properties of Glulam could be varied. (Line 79)
- The definition of the reinforcement ratio is not written. (Line 89)
- Figure 3 shows four point bending method, not three one. (Line 90)
- Parts of the tables 5 and 6 in the discussion belong to the results. (Lines 182 and 209)
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript “sustainability-1168598”. Those comments are helpful for authors to revise and improve our paper. We have studied comments carefully and tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the referees′ good comments. Revised portion is marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Please feel free to contact us with any questions and we are looking forward to your consideration. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:enclosure of responds to the reviewer’s comments.
Sincerely,
Chao Yang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The Paper is now substantially improved and can be accepted.
The only suggestion is to include the technical drawing in the Reply 1 into Figure 2 (or to add some technical quote to the pictures)
Author Response
亲爱的编辑和审稿人：
非常感谢您对我们的手稿“ sustainability-1168598”进行的认真审阅和建设性建议。我们已经仔细研究了评论并改进了手稿。修改后的部分在纸张中标记为蓝色。我们衷心感谢编辑/审稿人的辛勤工作，并希望这些更正能够获得批准。如有任何问题，请随时与我们联系，我们期待您的考虑。本文中的主要更正和对审阅者评论的回应如下：随函附上对审阅者评论的回应。
真挚地，
朝阳
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
