Nano- and Micro-Modification of Building Reinforcing Bars of Various Types
, Nikolai Vatin 4, Yuriy Vasilev 5, Sergey Klyuev 6, Mugahed Amran 7,8 and Maciej Szelag 9Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This submission cannot be accepted for publication because the presentation is very bad.
It is not clear whether the surface or the whole rebar is considered.
In the SEM image Fig. 8, nothing can be seen.
It is not made clear how the temperature dependencies of the different samples were evaluated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1!
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Your valuable comments helped make our manuscript even better. All corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in blue. Below are the answers to all comments from your first review.
Comment 1: It is not clear whether the surface or the whole rebar is considered.
Response: In this paper, of course, it is the surface of the rebars modified with various nano- and micro-additives that is important.
Comment 2: In the SEM image Fig. 8, nothing can be seen.
Response: Analysis of Fig. 8 it is possible to determine the composition of the composite matrix, the elements of which are positioned as follows: 1- unreacted part of the basalt fiber with the liquid elements of the composite (brown); 2- reacted and hardened basalt fiber material (black); 3- Al2O3 nanoparticles in dimensions from 5 to 40 nm (white). A high-density monolithic nanostructure of a dispersion-strengthened matrix is noted, which provides improved performance characteristics compared to metal reinforcement, as well as un-modified FRP rebar. (lines 228-234)
Comment 3: It is not made clear how the temperature dependencies of the different samples were evaluated.
Response: Operation of basalt-plastic materials based on polyester resins is possible within the range of 60-120°Ð¡, epoxy resin is within 80-140°Ð¡, and phenol-formaldehyde is 150-250°Ð¡ [32]. However, the inclusion of micro- and nano-sized powders in the composition of the powders considered above will increase this limit of the possible temperature range to 286 - 320°C, which will undoubtedly expand the range of technological application of products made of these materials. As the analysis shows, when materials are heated to 350-400°C, the physical and mechanical properties are more stable for basalt plastics, which are based on organosilicon and polyamide binders (Fig. 10). (lines 261-268)
Reviewer 2 Report
The problem studied is of little interest to researchers and seems to be more some common laboratory tests. The authors' own scientific contribution is not very clear either, the work seems a common application.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2!
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Your valuable comments helped make our manuscript even better. All corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in blue. Below are the answers to all comments from your first review.
Comment 1: The problem studied is of little interest to researchers and seems to be more some common laboratory tests. The authors' own scientific contribution is not very clear either, the work seems a common application.
Response: The paper discusses the research results of the developed composite reinforcement with the addition of micro- and nano-sized particles. The microstructure of FRP has been studied using scanning electron microscopy. It was revealed that dispersion-strengthened polymer composites with the inclusion of micro-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 particles will have a much higher modulus of elasticity and strength when compared with the original polymer materials. In the course of the experiment, it was confirmed that at the same time, they retain plastic properties and are characterized by the absence of fragility. High strength of materials is provided with a particle size of 10-500 nm, evenly distributed in the matrix, with an average distance between particles of 100-500 nm. It was found that composite reinforcement has improved adhesion characteristics in comparison with both steel reinforcement (1.5-2 times, depending on the diameter), and with traditional unmodified FRP rebar (about 1.5 times). The use of micro-nanosized powders will increase the limit of the possible temperature range for the use of polymeric materials of application by almost 2 times, up to 286 - 320°Ð¡, which will undoubtedly expand the range of techno-logical applications of products made of these materials. (lines 24-38)
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript investigates the microstructure, strength, adhesion, and temperature range of fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) rebar with the addition of micro-/nano-sized particles (e.g., micro-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 particles). Although performance improvement is observed, the novelty of this work in the context of literature reports is not clearly outlined. The authors may want to address the following comments before consideration for publication.
- Several figure plots/tables may be combined (or moved to the SI) for concise presentation and easy comparison.
- Please also use high-resolution images as the text in many figure plots is blurry.
- How does the developed FRP rebar compare to other composite reinforcements? The authors may consider benchmarking the performance of the results from this study against those reported in the literature.
- The authors may consider elaborating on the discussion of the results to provide insights into the underlying physics (e.g., the reason and % of performance improvement).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3!
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Your valuable comments helped make our manuscript even better. All corrections in the manuscript are highlighted in blue. Below are the answers to all comments from your first review.
Comment 1: Several figure plots/tables may be combined (or moved to the SI) for concise presentation and easy comparison.
Response: Figures 7 and 8 have been combined
Comment 2: Please also use high-resolution images as the text in many figure plots is blurry.
Response: We have provided high-resolution drawings that make all text perfectly readable.
Comment 3: How does the developed FRP rebar compare to other composite reinforcements? The authors may consider benchmarking the performance of the results from this study against those reported in the literature.
Response: Such comparisons are presented in each figure and in each table.
Comment 4 The authors may consider elaborating on the discussion of the results to provide insights into the underlying physics (e.g., the reason and % of performance improvement).
Response: Some of the physics behind performance improvement are outlined in the current study. Other promising questions have been suggested for research by other authors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The submission can almost be accepted for publication, after moderate changes such as:
- In table 1, you have a resolution of 1.5 kV at 15 nm.
- A table should be on one page.
- In Fig. 4b), the specimen cannot be seen.
- You could state that from 2.5 to 2.7% is a rise of about 8%.
- There are some typos and some English mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Thanks to your valuable comments, the manuscript just got better! All comments were carefully analyzed and used for revising the manuscript. All changes to the manuscript were highlighted in red.
Responses to Reviewer comments:
The submission can almost be accepted for publication, after moderate changes such as:
Comment 1: In table 1, you have a resolution of 1.5 kV at 15 nm.
Response 1: Accordingly, the required corrections were successfully made.
Comment 2: A table should be on one page.
Response 2: Accordingly, the required arrangement was successfully made.
Comment 3: In Fig. 4b), the specimen cannot be seen.
Response 3: The specimens are shown in Fig. 4 a, and Fig. 4 b shows the setup for studying these samples.
Comment 4: You could state that from 2.5 to 2.7% is a rise of about 8%.
Response 4: Accordingly, the valuable suggestions were successfully taken into consideration. (line 248)
Comment 5: There are some typos and some English mistakes.
Response 5: Accordingly, the required revision and improvements in the level of the English language throughout the manuscript were successfully done by a native speaker.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the readers of this journal will appreciate the results of this manuscript. Generally speaking the material is judiciously divided and organized and correct from scientific point of view, but not so interesting for the readers. Many changes are, however, necessary. For these reasons I can recommend the acceptance of this paper after some corrections.
Before that the Editor makes a decision, I suggest that the authors emphasize take into account the following corrections
- The Abstract section is presented too superficially and without pointing out what is really being done. Please improve this section.
- The section Conclusions will be point out the original results of the paper and can be extended to highlight the contributions.
- Section 2 must be improved in order to explain more clear the contribution of the author and the existing state of art.
- Some editing "glitches" need to be corrected.
- After each relationship a point, comma or semi-column should be placed.
- I think the authors need to emphasize more clearly the contribution of the manuscript from a scientific point of view.
- Template of the journal must be respected.
- What is Ref.14, a joke ???? This is your reference: Reinforcement, C.; Billet-steel, P.; Specimens, C.; Sections, M. Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections 353 [Metric] 1. Concrete 2003. Please remove this reference, may be with: Advanced Pultruded Glass Fibers-Reinforced Isophtalic Polyester Resin MATERIALE PLASTICE, 2015, Vol. 52, Issue: 1, pp. 62-64 or Optimum stacking in a multi-ply laminate used for the skin of adaptive wings. OPTOELECTRONICS AND ADVANCED MATERIALS-RAPID COMMUNICATIONS, 2011, Vol. 5, Issue: 11, pp.1233-1236
If the author takes into account these observations the work can be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for your interest in my manuscript. Thanks to your valuable comments, the manuscript just got better! All comments were carefully analyzed and used for revising the manuscript. All changes to the manuscript were highlighted in red.
Responses to Reviewer comments:
I think the readers of this journal will appreciate the results of this manuscript. Generally speaking the material is judiciously divided and organized and correct from scientific point of view, but not so interesting for the readers. Many changes are, however, necessary. For these reasons I can recommend the acceptance of this paper after some corrections.
Before that the Editor makes a decision, I suggest that the authors emphasize take into account the following corrections.
Comment 1: The Abstract section is presented too superficially and without pointing out what is really being done. Please improve this section.
Response 1: Accordingly, the required improvements in the abstract were successfully done. (lines 24-27, 29, 32-33, 35, 37-38)
Comment 2: The section Conclusions will be point out the original results of the paper and can be extended to highlight the contributions.
Response 2: Accordingly, the required future contributions in this research topic were highlighted at the end of the conclusion section. (lines 319-323)
Comment 3: Section 2 must be improved in order to explain more clear the contribution of the author and the existing state of art.
Response 3: Section 2 only describes materials and methods. And the contribution of the authors to the current state of affairs on the research topic can be traced in all other sections of the article, especially in the abstract and conclusions.
Comment 4: Some editing "glitches" need to be corrected
Response 4: Accordingly, the required correction was successfully done.
Comment 5: After each relationship a point, comma or semi-column should be placed.
Response 5: There are 2 relationships in the manuscript. After each of them there are commas
Comment 6: I think the authors need to emphasize more clearly the contribution of the manuscript from a scientific point of view.
Response 6: The abstract and conclusions were significantly corrected in order to more specifically determine the contribution of the manuscript to the existing system of knowledge on the topic (lines 24-27, 29, 32-33, 35, 37-38, 299-300, 303-305, 308-323)
Comment 7: Template of the journal must be respected.
Response 7: We are sorry for the errors. Accordingly, the format of the Crystals Journal was successfully revised.
Comment 8: What is Ref.14, a joke ???? This is your reference: Reinforcement, C.; Billet-steel, P.; Specimens, C.; Sections, M. Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole Sections 353 [Metric] 1. Concrete 2003. Please remove this reference, may be with: Advanced Pultruded Glass Fibers-Reinforced Isophtalic Polyester Resin MATERIALE PLASTICE, 2015, Vol. 52, Issue: 1, pp. 62-64 or Optimum stacking in a multi-ply laminate used for the skin of adaptive wings. OPTOELECTRONICS AND ADVANCED MATERIALS-RAPID COMMUNICATIONS, 2011, Vol. 5, Issue: 11, pp.1233-1236
If the author takes into account these observations the work can be published.
Response 8: Reference #14 was removed accordingly and replaced with Advanced Pultruded Glass Fibers-Reinforced Isophtalic Polyester Resin Materiale Plastice, 2015, Vol. 52, Issue: 1, pp. 62-64, as suggested.
