Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: 1) English is poor in places, there are errors too numerous to list here. Needs to be proof-read by
a native speaker.3

2) the motivation behind this paper is poorly explained, particularly in the abstract. please rewrite the abstract
so it is clear what the significance of this study is.

3) The introduction is rather short, the authors could extend this to cover more literature to support their study.
Implemented as suggested

4) Plot graphs with the same axes - eg. figure 6

Implemented as suggested

5) DIC system is shown in the photos but not referenced, was this used?

6) the addition of cfrp has changed the failure from ductile (flexure) to brittle (shear). is this desirable?
The present study aimed at understanding the influence of various techniques on strength and ductility
characteristics of the slab. Any mention of effectiveness in the manuscript refers to these characteristics. Effect
of strengthening techniques on failure modes could be the scope for future study.

7) Modelling shear failures is difficult with FE, please expand on the variables you have used in your fe model
to achieve the results. since this was undertaken with knowledge of the failure loads, how much calibration was
required
The variables considered in FE model to achieve the shear results is explained in Material modelling section.

8) figure 17 is not clear - crack comparison is not very convincing

9) overall you have not expanded in sufficient detail on the motivation for this study, nor have you explored the
implications of changing the failure mode of a structural member. this must be added.
Reviewer #2: The paper presents an experimental campaign on damaged hollow core slabs strengthened with
carbon fiber reinforced polymers.
It also complements the tests with a numerical model to compare briefly the results.

The paper is well written, and the experiments are well described and chosen, so it gives some interesting point
of view to the research, despite the fact the results are quite predictable.
Some minor corrections are needed:

1) The tittle should be reduced, and acronyms avoided.

Implemented as suggested.

2) A notation section is needed.

Notation section is added in the revised manuscript.

3) Caption of Figure 2 is too large, so it should be clearly reduced.

Implemented as suggested

4) Figure 5 could be divided into two parts.

Implemented as suggested

5) Table 1 does not detail the experiments, so it should be improved.

Implemented as suggested

6) The legend of the figures does not match with the nomenclature of Table 1.
Nomenclature in Table 1 changed as per legends of figures.

7) It seems that the numerical model fits quite well with the experimental results. However, it is not clear which
is its utility in this paper as no any parametric study is performed. Very few results and conclusions are related
with it.

8) Why PC cases are not included in Table 3?

The Pre-cracked values are included in the Table.3