Development of a Novel Apparatus to Determine Multiaxial Tensile Failure Criteria of Bridge Repair Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper provides a structured approach about the use of a Looney Bin apparatus. The different states of stress testing, namely, uniaxial tension, triaxial tension, biaxial tension, and tension-tension-compression, are properly presented.

However,

 

1. Please provide more detail to describe the images referenced in the paper. For instance, when discussing Figures 2 and 3, provide an explanation of what the reader should observe or be made aware of.

2. The method section seems well-arranged but lacks depth in parts. For example, the process for applying various stress states using the Looney Bin could benefit from more detail to ensure the reproducibility of the results.

3. It is creative how the load is applied and that a custom load cell is used to measure the load. More elaboration is needed on the actual process of load cell construction. Including a figure or diagram of the process could be very helpful.

4. The paper could be strengthened by providing the purpose of the tests and the significance of each stress state upfront. This context would help readers understand the practical implications or potential applications of the study findings.

5. It would be beneficial if the authors included a section dedicated to the discussion and interpretation of the data generated in these tests.

6. While the paper provides insights into the existing models, it appears to lack a comprehensive literature review comparing and contrasting with other studies.

7. The specific data interpretations are not presented. It would be interesting to see a detailed discussion about comparing trial data against existing failure models for UHPC, and the implications of these comparisons to the field.

 

 

 

The method section seems well-arranged but lacks depth in parts. For example, the process for applying various stress states using the Looney Bin could benefit from more detail to ensure reproducibility of the results.

The authors write in a professional and understandable manner, however, the paper could use a more comprehensive language when explaining technical details for better clarity.

Author Response

Please see the attached file for responses to reviewer comments. Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Current research was concerned with the development of a novel apparatus for determining multiaxial tensile failure criteria, which is believed to be of great importance in the literature. For this, it was designed to test 50 mm cube specimens in triaxial tension, biaxial tension, tension-compression and tension-tension-compression stress states, which is known as "Looney Bin" and can be met really necessary needs. Within the scope of the research, the apparatus and fixtures in question were successfully designed and trial tests were also conducted convincingly on a UHPC in order to propose a test method for each of the evaluated stress states. The apparatus designed for the research carried out, the data collected for different stress states using the established procedures, were compared with previously published failure models for UHPC and verified by the discussions deemed sufficient. In the well-organized paper, some question marks have been brought to the attention of the authors to contribute to the paper.

1-- From the reweaving of the entire paper, it is recognized that the focused issue cannot necessarily be evaluated in terms of bridge repair material. This will require either a comprehensive revision of the paper or a revision of the paper title for the UHPC focused on the research. The choice should be evaluated by the authors.

2-- It was noticed that the last four keywords reported among the keywords were not used anywhere in the paper, outside the scope of this caption. It is expected that this issue will be re-evaluated by the authors.

3-- The scope of the sub-caption "2.3. Fabricated and Assembled Looney Bin"; for the Looney Bin manufactured and assembled, schematic drawings with dimensions and intended uses are needed for clarity. It will be useful to report the information important for the apparatus designed in Figures 1, 3 on the figure.

4-- The scope of the sub-caption of "2.4. Data Collection Method"; considering that strain gauges designed to be used in the data collection method are consumables, it is thought that information on how to enable repeated use should be shared.

5-- The scope of the sub-caption of "3.1. Establishing Specimen Gluing Procedure"; it remains to be clarified whether the idea that low permeability reduces epoxy bond strength has been tested. It is also considered that it is necessary to verify whether there is a nominal correspondence for the measurements performed for the sandblasted cube samples.

6-- The scope of the sub-caption of "3.2. Finalizing the Test Setup"; it is considered that a nominal response should be reported for the friction problem, which is reduced by placing needle roller thrust bearings compressed with thin washers of equal diameter between the plate wall and the larger diameter washers.

7-- The scope of the sub-caption of "3.2. Finalizing the Test Setup"; in order for the apparatus used to be general purpose, it is thought that attention should be paid to the conditions up to and after the experimental stage and a user manual should be prepared for the procedures to be done. For this, the authors are expected to design a representative flowchart.

8-- The scope of the sub-caption of "3.2. Finalizing the Test Setup"; it remains to be clarified whether the conventional ordering of principal stresses conflicts with the preference for load application in the sigma two direction first.

9-- The scope of the sub-caption of "3.3. Evaluation of the Fabricated Looney Bin"; the vertical axis needs to be defined in Figures 12 and 13. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file for responses to reviewer comments. Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with the Apparatus to Multiaxial Tensile Failure Criteria of Bridge Repair Materials. The authors have chosen an interesting topic. The structure and method of the manuscript are clear. The results are well explained and discussed.

Some of the important points are highlighted below:

1.                  I suggest the authors to modify the topic of the manuscript.

2.                  The abstract should state the purpose of the research, the principal results, and the major conclusions briefly. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. The abstract structure should be as follows: (introduction, problem of statement, materials, methods, results, and recommendations). Please revise your abstract.

3.                  The points presented in the conclusion section are not up to the mark. The authors are advised to revise it completely and try to present information, which is a summary of the important aspects discussed in the preceding sections. It certainly lacks in its current form.

-                      Change the name of section to “Conclusion and Recommendations”.

-                      Add Recommendations. 

-                      Make the conclusion and Recommendation in points.

-                      Add more critical points.

 

 

minor grammatical errors

Author Response

Please see the attached file for responses to reviewer comments. Thank you for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Major revisions for this paper were suggested by me on 18 August 2018. According to the re-reviewes made, it was understood that the revisions based on the comprehensive answers for the paper met the suggested revisions. I thank the authors and I sincerely present this paper to be accepted as it is.