Ms. Ref. No..

: CCC-D-14-00480
Title: EFFECTS OF BLENDING FIBERS ON TENSILE RESISTANCE OF ULTRA HIGH
PERFORMANCE FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE UNDER IMPACT
Cement and Concrete Composites

Dear Dr Jeon,

Reviewers' comments on your work have now been received. You will see that they are
advising against publication of your work. Therefore I must reject it.

For your guidance, I append the reviewers' comments below.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely,

Nemkumar Banthia, Ph.D., P.Eng. FRSC

Editor
Cement and Concrete Composites
Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This study was performed to evaluate the effects of blending fibers on ultra
high performance fiber reinforced concrete under the impact. However, the text cover the test
results in general information (ex. increasing fiber volume fraction leads to improving the
tensile properties). The authors need to detail description about test results.

① It need to be confirm and correction as follow.

- check the number of table in text (order listed in the text).
- check the number of figure in text (Figs. 9→Figs. 8 at 12p) Commented [JP1]: corrected

② EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
- In the INTRODUCTION, it was written that UHPFRC are oriented to minimize the amount
of steel fibers (using 1%) but enhancing their mechanical resistance. However, the macro
fiber used 1% regardless of type of fiber in this study (Table 3) and it was increased the
amount of fiber more than existing UHPFRC (1% steel fiber). Commented [JP2]: No need to change

i) Material and specimen preparation

- The used amount of superplasticizer increased as the volume content of PA fiber to control
the workability. However, the valued is fixed 0.067 in Table 1. Commented [JP3]: Please check using value of
superplasticizer
③ TEST RESULTS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION
i) Static test results
- It seems like that S10p05 produced the highest performance in Fig. 5(c) rather than S10p10. Commented [JP4]: I changed value of table 4. Please
- Tensile strength of P10p10 higher than P10p15. Nevertheless, could be described that short check some word of manuscript.
fibers are much more efficient than long fiber for enhancing the tensile strength? P10p15 was
more improving the peak toughness. It needs to correct the terminology. Commented [JP5]: No need to change
- At the last paragraph, it needs to write the clear name of mixture like a P10p10, and S10p10.
In addition, it needs to check the enhancing values 12 and 25% (unresolved value due to
uncertain name of mixture). Commented [JP6]: Please check manuscript, because
data change S10p10.
ii) Impact test results
- The authors says hybrid UPFRCCs were shown tensile strain hardening behavior at high
strain rate. However, it could not be found the hardening behavior of S-p hybrid mixture at
Fig. 10(c). Commented [JP7]: No need to change
Reviewer #2: Theme of the article is of timely importance and attracts an attention as well.
The results should, however, be more thoroughly analyzed and the manuscript needs
revisions.

1) To reviewers, it is difficult to understand why the authors selected such a high strength
matrix of approximately 180 MPa. This is because the tensile strength of polyamid fiber is
too low to prevent fiber fracture before pullout. This can be simply predicted before testing,
and in general, the fracture of fiber before pullout is the failure mode that we should avoid.
Therefore, the authors should give rational reasons for this. Commented [JP8]: No need to change
2) Please provide more detailed basic information of impact test (i.e., (1) sampling rate, (2)
how the impact stress data was analyzed considering a low pass filter or not, (3) the
fluctuation of stress-strain curves in Fig. 10(a) and (b) is only related to the material behavior
or including vibration of transmitter bar, etc.). Commented [JP9]: Please check manuscript
3) Fig. 5 shows the average stress-strain curves for all test series. Please provide the
information how the authors averaged the data. This is very important.
4) In addition, there is no any information regarding the standard deviation for static tests.
Thus, the authors strongly recommend that provide all stress-strain curves with averaged
curve in Fig. 5. Commented [JP10]: No need to change
5) The authors explain that the short fibers are much more efficient than long fibers for
enhancing the tensile strength due to improving the micro-crack bridging. The authors should
provide a more rational reason to support this sentence. To reviewers, the improvement of
tensile strength is more related to the number of fibers at crack surfaces, rather than the
effectiveness of short fibers on micro-cracking resistance. Commented [JP11]: Please check manuscript and
6) If the authors have a test result of pullout behavior of polyamid fiber in UHPC, please some word should be change
provide that. The explanation of Fig. 7 can be clearly understood from this pullout test result.
The explanation is only possible for the case of slip-hardening. Thus, the first picture of Fig.
7 can also be related to the mechanism of fiber stretch rather than pullout. Polyamid fiber has
very low elastic modulus, thus it can be more stretched than steel fiber. Commented [JP12]: No need to change