Investigation on Shrinkage Characteristics of Polyester-Fiber-Reinforced Cement-Stabilized Concrete Considering Fiber Length and Content
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors investigated the shrinkage characteristics of polyester-fiber-reinforced cement-stabilized concrete considering fiber length and content. The manuscript is interesting and can be considered for the publication after addressing the following comments.
1. Please give the optimal content and length of the polyester.
2. Line 219, it should be “The effects of fiber content on temperature shrinkage coefficient are shown in Fig. 7.”.
3. Line 241, it should be “Table 5-7”.
4. Line 252, please check whether the values of R2 are less than 0.22.
5. In Figure 4, why does the drying shrinkage coefficient increase when the fiber length is 3 cm and the fiber content is less than 0.1 ‰.
6. Please supplement the relationship of splitting strength and shrinkage coefficients into the Abstract.
Author Response
The authors investigated the shrinkage characteristics of polyester-fiber-reinforced cement-stabilized concrete considering fiber length and content. The manuscript is interesting and can be considered for the publication after addressing the following comments.
(1) Please give the optimal content and length of the polyester.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The optimum fiber content and fiber length is 0.7 ‰ and 5cm for the dry shrinkage resistance and 0.7 ‰ and 9cm for the temperature shrinkage resistance, which has been supplemented in the revised manuscript (Lines 26-27).
(2) Line 219, it should be “The effects of fiber content on temperature shrinkage coefficient are shown in Fig. 7.”
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been corrected in the revised manuscript (Line 247).
(3) Line 241, it should be “Table 5-7”.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. It should be explained that Table 5 has been deleted in revised manuscript, according to 3rd reviewer’s comment.
(4) Line 252, please check whether the values of R2 are less than 0.22..
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. “R2 less than 0.22” is corrected to “R2 less than 0.18” in the revised manuscript (Line 296).
(5) In Figure 4, why does the drying shrinkage coefficient increase when the fiber length is 3 cm and the fiber content is less than 0.1 ‰.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your suggestion. When the fiber content is less than 0.1 ‰ and the fiber length is 3cm, the dry shrinkage coefficients increase as the increase of fiber content. It may be caused by the test error. Ac-cording to the Chinese test standard 'Testing methods of Cement and Concrete for High-way Engineering (JTG 3420-2020)', the allowable error of dry shrinkage test is 15 %. The data fluctuation here is only 2.11 % and far less than the allowable error, which can prove the reliability of the data presented in Figure 4.
The above has been explained in the revised manuscript (Lines 190-196).
(6) Please supplement the relationship of splitting strength and shrinkage coefficients into the Abstract.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your suggestion. The relationship between splitting strength and shrinkage coefficient has been supplemented in the Abstract in the revised manuscript (Lines 28-29).
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript explores the “Investigation on Shrinkage Characteristics of Polyester-Fiber Reinforced Cement-Stabilized Concrete Considering Fiber Length and Content”. The manuscript is elaborately described and contextualized with the help of previous and present theoretical background. All the references cited are relevant to this area of research. The methods/analytical study are clearly stated. The result and discussion section are clearly presented. The manuscript needs the following modifications before the acceptance.
1. Abstarct: Revise the statment ‘The relationship between shrinkage resistance and strength is also not discussed’ to ‘The relationship……… is discussed scandy’.
2. Abstract – Mention your research need.
3. Arrange the key words in alphabetical order
4. Cite the sentence ‘Reinforced cement-based concrete has been widely adopted in the civil construction [1,2]’ using the following works.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800355
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123209
5. Cite the sentence ‘Although various fibers have respective advantages, the polyester fiber and polypropylene fiber become the most popular choices considering the price factor’ using the following work.
https://doi.org/10.17533/10.17533/udea.redin.20190403
6. Mention the relevant standards/codes for the testing performed
7. Conclusion: Mention the research recommendations and scope for the future work
Author Response
This manuscript explores the “Investigation on Shrinkage Characteristics of Polyester-Fiber Reinforced Cement-Stabilized Concrete Considering Fiber Length and Content”. The manuscript is elaborately described and contextualized with the help of previous and present theoretical background. All the references cited are relevant to this area of research. The methods/analytical study are clearly stated. The result and discussion section are clearly presented. The manuscript needs the following modifications before the acceptance.
(1) Abstarct: Revise the statment ‘The relationship between shrinkage resistance and strength is also not discussed’ to ‘The relationship……… is discussed scandy’
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The statement has been corrected according to your kind suggestion in the revised manuscript (Lines 14-15).
(2) Abstract – Mention your research need.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The research need has been supplemented in Abstract in the revised manuscript (Lines 21-23).
(3) Arrange the key words in alphabetical order.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. Keywords have been arranged in alphabetical order in the revised manuscript (Lines 30-31).
(4) Cite the sentence ‘Reinforced cement-based concrete has been widely adopted in the civil construction [1,2]’ using the following works.
https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201800355
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123209.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The two references have been cited in the revised manuscript (Lines 35, 359-364).
(5) Cite the sentence ‘Although various fibers have respective advantages, the polyester fiber and polypropylene fiber become the most popular choices considering the price factor’ using the following work.
https://doi.org/10.17533/10.17533/udea.redin.20190403
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your suggestion. The reference has been cited in the revised manuscript (Lines 69, 411-412).
(6) Mention the relevant standards/codes for the testing performed
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The relevant testing standard has been mentioned in the revised manuscript (Line 110-112, 413-414).
(7) Conclusion: Mention the research recommendations and scope for the future work.
Authors’ Reply:
The future work has been mentioned in the conclusion in the revised manuscript (Lines 338-341).
Reviewer 3 Report
Poor quality of Figure 2.
Figures 2 and 3 are not described or explained. The methodology lacks a more detailed description of the Figures 2 and 3.
The process (lines 131-138) is presented incorrectly, I would recommend numbering, correcting grammatical errors.
What is the purpose of repeating the results in Tables and Figures? Tables 5, 6 and 7 show, but do not explain their results.
A more detailed analysis of the results in Figures 9, 10 and 11 is missing.
Author Response
(1) Poor quality of Figure 2.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. Figure 2 has been improved in the revised manuscript (Figure 2).
(2) Figures 2 and 3 are not described or explained. The methodology lacks a more detailed description of the Figures 2 and 3.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The methodologies of dry and temperature shrinkage test have been explained in the revised manuscript (Lines 113-148).
(3) The process (lines 131-138) is presented incorrectly, I would recommend numbering, correcting grammatical errors.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. The related content has been numbered and corrected in the revised manuscript (Lines 154-163).
(4) What is the purpose of repeating the results in Tables and Figures? Tables 5, 6 and 7 show, but do not explain their results.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. Table 5 has been deleted in the revised manuscript and submitted as a supporting file. Moreover, considering Figures 8 – 11 are difficult to show the trend of compressive and splitting strength as the change of fiber content and length, Tables 6 and 7 are remained in the revised manuscript (Tables 5 and 6). The analysis on the compressive and splitting strength according to the two tables are also supplemented in the revised manuscript (Line 272-284).
(5) A more detailed analysis of the results in Figures 9, 10 and 11 is missing.
Authors’ Reply:
Thank you for your comment. A detailed analysis on the compressive and splitting strength has been supplemented in the revised manuscript (Line 272-284).
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form.
