Performance-Based Fibre Design for Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is mere replication of previous studies published by many researchers earlier.
1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104425
2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-016-0157-4
3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.049
The paper adds nothing new to the existing body of knowledge. In sections 1 and 2, the authors have not been able to justify the need for this research. Research gaps are not identified and the scientific novelty and uniqueness have not been established.
Another concern is the very weak experimental methods section. Many fatigue (cyclic loading) parameters have not been described. Loading scenarios and load cycles have not been discussed. Also, stress levels and static performance is not considered.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please find our answers in the document attached.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very short but interesting article providing a novel concept for designing fibre reinforced concrete, based on actual behaviour of fibres instead of the empirical assumptions currently used. Although there is no new experimental results in the paper, it is original in that it gives an overall picture of the behaviour observed in numerous other publications. The scientific explanation of the observed trends is worth publishing. There are a number of small corrections required before the paper can be considered for publication including the following:
The word "resp." is used throughout the document, but that is not an English word and the appropriate word should be written out in full.
In line104 there is a reference to Chapter 2 that is clearly not the correct reference.
In line 108, the word plane should probably be plain?
In Figure 2 there seems to be a spelling error under Material (should it be Polymer based fibres?)
It would be interesting for the reader to have some indication of the mix composition and the particle size distribution of the materials used as this would have a significant effect on the test results (the mixture seems to contain no coarse aggregates, but the average reader of this journal would not be able to find out without purchasing the original source documents).
In line 237 reference is made to equation 4, but equation 3 is only referenced in line 248. It may be good to swop these two equations around in this paper.
In line 343 reference is made to section 4.2.2 - that is clearly not in this paper!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks for your time reviewing our article.
All your comments should be considered.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript ID: applsci-1788856
Manuscript Title: Performance-Based Fibre Design for Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC)
General comment:
The article subject is very interesting for ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC). However, it can be considered for publication after carrying on some revisions. Here are some recommendations for improvement.
Specific comments:
1. Abstract: The discussion could be further described, the main findings should be introduced.
2. The design of the experimental program lacks explanations, such as the detailed information on the materials…
3. The conclusions could be further combined.
4. The results and discussion section should be further described and provided more results for understanding.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks for your time reviewing our article.
All your comments should be considered.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has not been satisfactorily revised. It lacks novelty, applicability, and scientific contribution.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we tried our best to consider your comments. Please find our answers in the green highlighted sections in the manuscript.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks to the authors' hard work. Some of the comments are not explained very well, hope the authors could address them in their future studies. No further review process is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks again for your effort to review our manuscript.
Best regards
