Evaluating Shear Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concretes through Artificial Intelligence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Before making any recommendations for an scientific article "Evaluating the Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concrete Elements Using Shear Using Artificial Intelligence.", I would like to present the following statements on the topic. Based on my long-term research and transfer profile in the field of holistic perception of the issues of civil engineering, I consider the evaluated scientific article to be topical, but I have several comments about it. I consider the total range of the article 272 lines to be insufficient, the lower range limit is around 400 lines.
Mandatory requirements:
LNSA 2-3 (Line Number of Scientific Article)...I recommend the authors to change the title and not put a period at the end of the title. In the context of the article, I would use, for example, the title: "Evaluating Shear Strength of Light and Normal-Weight Concretes through Artificial Intelligence".
LNSA 10-23…Abstract is necessary to rework with greater emphasis on light-weight concretes and areas of their application. The abbreviations EPR, ANN need to be explained the first time they are used. In the abstract, the current scientific knowledge of the subject matter should be briefly characterized, the goals, methods of solution clearly defined, and the achieved results confront with the works of foreign authors.
LNSA 26-49…11. The Introduction needs to be greatly expanded. As already mentioned, it is necessary to describe in more detail the issue of light-weight concrete (foam concrete, composite foam concrete,...) and the most important areas of their use. In the case of using foam concrete in traffic structures, especially roadways, the most important characteristic is tensile strength during bending. Recently, a number of articles have been published on the issue, including Central Europe, whose situation I know well. References to references 32-35 are not mentioned in the introduction, and references to references 37-38 are also missing in the article.
LNSA 131-158...5. Conclusions.. considering the amount of work done and its quality, it would be appropriate to expand the conclusions. It is necessary to highlight the authors' own contribution and the achieved results to the set goals (introduction extension required). As already indicated, the results of the authors' research need to be compared with important articles by foreign authors, including Europe. Before the conclusions, it is necessary to complete the discussion chapter, or make an extended chapter Discussion and conclusions.
Facultative recommendations:
LNSA 69... Figure 1. Distribution of variables for outputs (in green), and inputs (in blue)...I do not consider the translation of the Gaussian normal distribution to be correct for some histograms. I recommend not to mention them, or to add other theoretical courses of distribution of frequency of occurrence.
LNSA 124... Figure 4. Relation between predicted and calculated (Vu) values using the developed models... I recommend the authors to consider unifying the format with the previous figures (indicate the names of the axes from the outside, do not underline the font,...).
LNSA 128-130... Figure 6. Taylor chart to compare the accuracy of developed models and existing codes. ...I recommend adding directly into the figure or its name explation of used abbreviations (RMSE, ANN,...), which will make it easier for the reader to understand the picture without searched in the article. It is also necessary to pay separate attention to the explanation of the meaning of this image, this also applies to other images in the article.
LNSA 170-254...References...from the aspect of the fact that the investigated problem is a problem of many countries, I consider the number of references 38 to be insufficient. As already indicated, it is necessary to add references from other continents, including Europe. At the end of references 1-6 it is necessary to add a period, it also applies to references 12, 31-36.
I consider the scientific potential of the reviewed scientific article to be considerable and, despite the mentioned comments, I recommend its revision. From the aspect of the stated fact and knowledge of the given issue, in case of incorporation of comments, or relevant justification of their non-incorporation, I am able to process a repeated review within 3 days.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you, appreciated. Please see attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find the attachment in three pages.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you appreciated. Please see attached .
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The address must be changed and the following address is suggested
"Evaluating the Shear Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight 2 Concrete Elements Using Artificial Intelligence"
2. The manuscript needs a proofreading
3. The introduction is insufficient. This study is on shear strength, however, there are no previous studies or references on the subject
4. The authors presented in their study a lot of data and calculations. Still, the explanation and discussion are very brief and insufficient and need to be expanded by presentation and discussion so that the information is useful to the reader.
5. The use of abbreviations in the conclusions is not desirable. The conclusions need to be reformulated and included the most important findings of the study to highlight its originality through it.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you appreciated it, please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deals with an interesting topic. However, the methodology is not sufficiently elaborated, and the results are not sufficiently described or interpreted. The paper should be significantly improved before it is resubmitted to the journal. The conclusion should be rewritten in its entirety. In addition, English proofreading is necessary.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you appreciated it, please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This paper evaluates the strength of light-weight and normal-weight concrete elements under shear using Artificial Intelligence (AI). This study aims to shed light on the strength of normal-weight and light-weight concrete elements under shear using machine learning methods. A massive experimental dataset of concrete elements tested in shear was collected. Three machine learning models were trained and validated using experimental dataset. Models were compared with existing design codes and guidelines.
This study provides novel and important results. Meanwhile, the authors should consider the following issues:
- There is need for a detailed proofreading of the paper. The title should be changed as: "Evaluating the Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concrete Elements Under Shear Using Artificial Intelligence.". A marked revised paper, which includes some required revisions and comments, is attached below. The addition of the following publications can help to enrich the References part:
1- "Is Artificial Neural Network Suitable for Damage Level Determination of RC-Structures?", 2010. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2(3), pp.71-81.
2- "Using of Fuzzy Logic Based Expert Systems for Fast Damage Determination of Structures After Earthquake", 2010. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science, 12(1), pp.65-74.
This paper can be accepted for publication upon the completion of required revisions given above and in the marked revised paper attached below.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you appreciated it, please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
By the author of the article "Evaluating Shear Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concretes through Artificial Intelligence" (original title Evaluating the Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concrete Elements Using Shear Using Artificial Intelligence.), I would like to present this summary evaluation. The assessed second version of the article is much better than the first, but it still does not reach the sufficient quality of a scientific contribution in a renowned journal.
In order for the article to meet my basic quality requirements for a detailed review, it is necessary to remove the following deficiencies.
LNSA (Line Number of Scientific Article) 9-23… The requirement of the first review on rework of the abstract was only partially fulfilled. Only scope and stylistic recommendations were met, what was not incorporated t implemented at all or insufficiently in the article: briefly characterized, the goals, methods of solution clearly defined, and the achieved results compared with the works of foreign authors.
LNSA 52-53... Although, Lightweight concrete popularity has been spreading all over the world... the sentence must be connected to the next one, or restyled. It is also necessary to specify the basic areas of building and engineering construction where lightweight concrete respectively foam concrete or composite foam concrete are used. Applications of composite foam concrete in road constructions, especially at high altitudes of roads with less traffic, have recently seen a significant range in Europe as well.
LNSA 87-88...The dataset was a combination of several previous datasets [9, 44-93]. Is the data 44-93 written correctly, if so, were all references used directly to create the Dataset?
LNSA 104-105... Figure 1. Distribution of variables for outputs (in green), and inputs (in blue)... it is necessary to complete the missing physical units in the descriptions of the axes of individual graphs.
LNSA 106-139... 3. SHEAR MECHANISMS...In this chapter it is necessary to include references to the mentioned, appropriately characterized, hear mechanism. I do not recommend dividing this short chapter into 5 subsections.
LNSA 141... 4.1. Introduction:...I recommend changing the title of the subsection (duplication with 1. Introduction) and removing the colon from the title
LNSA 171...4.1.2Genetic programming (GP)...reformat the subsection title and remove the colon from its title.
LNSA 243...4.2. GP-model: reformat and rework the subsection title and remove the colon from its title.
LNSA 256...Table 3. ANN-model developed weights matrix... it is necessary to edit the texts so that table 3 is not single on the relevant page of the article.
LNSA 259… Figure 3. layout for the developed ANN...the name must start with a capital letter and the dot must be removed at the end of the name for compatibility with other names, also applies to other texts of the article.
LNSA 260-261...Figure 4. Relative importance of input parameters...it is necessary to explain the meaning of the picture in text, or to remove it.
LNSA 264-267...equations 1-3 are not visible in the provided version of the article (the number of equation 3 is given twice).
LNSA 286-288...it is necessary to improve the graphic quality of figures 5 and 6 (e.g. the compactibile quality with figure 7), to indicate correlation dependencies with real variables in the graphs and not in the general form "y=kx".
LNSA 302-303... Fig. 8 shows the SR (ratio between measured and calculated strength) versus concrete 302 compressive strength as well as the best fit trendline... I recommend figure 8 to be listed directly after this sentence, it also applies to figure 9 (LNSA 317).
LNSA 370-384...it is necessary to significantly improve the quality of images 8-14 (write the numerical data of the description of the y-axes without decimal places, use the same colour of the descriptions as in the other images, write the equations with real variables, ..). Adjust the size of the images and the organization of the texts so that they can be placed directly after the first reference to the image.
LNSA 328-423...7. Conclusions...Chapter 6 is missing. It is necessary to revise the conclusions with an emphasis on the set goals presented in the abstract (necessity of revision) and the introduction of the article. From the aspect that the article does not contain a separate chapter Discussion, it is desirable to confront the presented research results with the most important works of foreign authors. In the last sentences of the paper, it should appropriate to explicitly state how the authors contributed to the progress of research in the area of ​​interest.
As a complete conclusion of the review with a very current topic, I would like to recommend the following facts to the authors. You should focus on more consistent incorporation of reviewers' recommendations, or credible justifications for not incorporating them. Reviewers are among the best in the scientific field related to the topic of the article, but if their efforts are not accepted by the authors, it is for us an extraordinary loss of their time.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for your effort. The manuscript and authors benefitted a lot from your comment. We have fulfilled all comments to the best of our abilities. Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks the authors for their effort. They have partially make revise to the manuscript, however some of their answers did not satisfy me. All in all I can accept the manuscript in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for your effort. The manuscript and authors benefitted a lot from your comment. We have fulfilled all comments to the best of our abilities. Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors made the necessary required corrections
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for your effort. The manuscript and authors benefitted a lot from your comment. We have fulfilled all comments to the best of our abilities. Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript contains 25 titles (more than a quarter of the titles from the literaturesture list) whose author is one of the authors of this manuscript. I deem that this is excessive self-citation of own work, which I do not support at all. However, I can agree that this version of the manuscript is significantly improved than the last one.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
thank you for your effort. The manuscript and authors benefitted a lot from your comment. We have fulfilled all comments to the best of our abilities. Please see attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Based on the incorporation of the changes recommended by me, I allow myself to rate the assessed third version of the scientific paper as follows. Reviewed contribution “Evaluating Shear Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concretes through Artificial Intelligence “ I rate it as good. Based on my experience in the assessed issue and subsequent deepening of my knowledge, I am pleased that the submitted 3. version of the article meets the majority my essential requirements for a quality scientific article. I am satisfied with the implementation of the required changes, or credible justifications for disregard on recommendations, and recommendations.
In order for the reviewed article to be published, I require the following requirements and recommendations to be met.
LNSA (Line Number of Science Article) 33... lightweight concrete [1-7]... axial stresses [12-17]... it is necessary to at least outline the relevance of the given information sources to the research topic.
LNSA 38... for each element [8-91]...are the given numbers correct?
LNSA 130... in MPa., ...a typo must be removed.
LNSA 284... Figure 5. Relation between predicted and calculated (Vu) values ​​using the developed models... the equations in the figure need to be written with specific variables, and not in the specific form of the linear equation y=kx. This requirement also applies to other figures.
LNSA 409-410... - Reliability and uncertainty analysis may be implemented in further research to im-prove the accuracy of the prediction [69]... The last sentence needs to be restyled, to specify the prediction in question. A scientific article should not end with a bullet point, but with a final sentence abstracting the most significant outputs or continuation vision
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Based on the incorporation of the changes recommended by me, I allow myself to rate the assessed third version of the scientific paper as follows. Reviewed contribution “Evaluating Shear Strength of Light-Weight and Normal-Weight Concretes through Artificial Intelligence “ I rate it as good. Based on my experience in the assessed issue and subsequent deepening of my knowledge, I am pleased that the submitted 3. version of the article meets the majority my essential requirements for a quality scientific article. I am satisfied with the implementation of the required changes, or credible justifications for disregard on recommendations, and recommendations.
A: Thank you appreciated.
In order for the reviewed article to be published, I require the following requirements and recommendations to be met.
LNSA (Line Number of Science Article) 33... lightweight concrete [1-7]... axial stresses [12-17]... it is necessary to at least outline the relevance of the given information sources to the research topic.
A: This is general introduction, where generally papers related are mention for reader reference..
LNSA 38... for each element [8-91]...are the given numbers correct?
A: For clarity, reference were corrected [8-11].
LNSA 130... in MPa., ...a typo must be removed.
A: For clarity, sentence corrected.
LNSA 284... Figure 5. Relation between predicted and calculated (Vu) values ​​using the developed models... the equations in the figure need to be written with specific variables, and not in the specific form of the linear equation y=kx. This requirement also applies to other figures.
A: For clarity, please see figure 5
LNSA 409-410... - Reliability and uncertainty analysis may be implemented in further research to im-prove the accuracy of the prediction [69]... The last sentence needs to be restyled, to specify the prediction in question. A scientific article should not end with a bullet point, but with a final sentence abstracting the most significant outputs or continuation vision
A: For clarity, the sentence was removed.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks to the authors for considering the suggestions and corrections, and for respecting them. I believe the paper has been corrected according to the reviewers' instructions and that its content, quality and form correspond to the Sustainability journal.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you, appreciated.
