Effect of Exposure to High Temperature on the Mechanical Properties of SIFRCCs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
See the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Effect of Exposure to High Temperature on the Mechanical Properties of SIFRCCs” intends, according to the authors, to study the mechanical properties of SIFRCCs before and after exposure to a high temperature using polymer powder, in replacement of organic fibres. However, this work fails in some topics, which should be clarified/improved in order to be published.
In detail, for example, Abstract should contain the main conclusions (highlighting what was done), as well as to provide some quantitative results related with the study.
In terms of “Introduction” the real state-of-the-art that supports this study is completely absent. In this context, this section does not clarify the readers neither it is helpful to the authors when they are discussing their results. On the other hand, the novelty of this study is not conveniently reported/supported by the authors, which confirms the poor state-of-the-art. Therefore, it is expected a significant improvement supported by the main references that were forgotten.
Relatively to section 2 (Materials and Methods), authors assumed that the tensile strength of the steel 73 fibres was 1200 MPa and the polymer powder with a particle size of 0.1 μm to 5 μm. These values were obtained by experimental procedures or by literature? It is expected references, or the experimental results obtained. Figures with the distribution and accumulation functions of the particle size are expected. The name and reference of the universal testing machine is expected. How many samples were tested for each condition? What means f in equation1? Please use mathematical symbols in equation 2 instead of characters (X). Figure 2 should be introduced and explained. How was obtained this curve? Where is it used?
In section 3 the results are not discussed and conveniently supported by the open literature. An absence of discussion is unacceptable because, in this context, questionable conclusions are obtained. This reflects the poor state of the art mentioned earlier. The static bending curves and compressive curves are expected, and the damage mechanisms must be described. Figures are marginally described. Therefore, this section should be significantly improved.
In conclusion, the paper must be significantly improved, because it is closer to a technical note/academic report than to a scientific document. In this context, I suggest to the authors a great effort to improve the paper in order to be published.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The paper “Effect of Exposure to High Temperature on the Mechanical Properties of SIFRCCs” intends, according to the authors, to study the mechanical properties of SIFRCCs before and after exposure to a high temperature using polymer powder, in replacement of organic fibres. However, this work fails in some topics, which should be clarified/improved in order to be published
Point 1:
In detail, for example, Abstract should contain the main conclusions (highlighting what was done), as well as to provide some quantitative results related with the study
Response 1:
Thank you for your comments.
It has been updated.
Point 2:
In terms of “Introduction” the real state-of-the-art that supports this study is completely absent. In this context, this section does not clarify the readers neither it is helpful to the authors when they are discussing their results. On the other hand, the novelty of this study is not conveniently reported/supported by the authors, which confirms the poor state-of-the-art. Therefore, it is expected a significant improvement supported by the main references that were forgotten.
Response 2:
Thank you for your comments.
Introduction part had been updated and few references had been added.
Point 3:
Relatively to section 2 (Materials and Methods), authors assumed that the tensile strength of the steel 73 fibres was 1200 MPa and the polymer powder with a particle size of 0.1 μm to 5 μm. These values were obtained by experimental procedures or by literature? It is expected references, or the experimental results obtained. Figures with the distribution and accumulation functions of the particle size are expected. The name and reference of the universal testing machine is expected. How many samples were tested for each condition? What means f in equation1? Please use mathematical symbols in equation 2 instead of characters (X). Figure 2 should be introduced and explained. How was obtained this curve? Where is it used?
Response 3:
Thank you for your comments.
Physical and chemical properties of steel fibers and polymer powder were taken from manufacture company. Link had been provided for properties of steel fiber http://www.kosteel.co.kr/eng/WeProvide/Product2.aspx?pCode=SFRC_bundrex&State=B
I am sorry, this time we do not have distribution and accumulation functions of the particles size so unable to provide it.
Name of Universal Testing Machine is DONG AH TESTING MACHINE, DA-227A-100 manufacture in Korea.
10 specimens were tested for each variable.
Equation 2 had been corrected.
Figure 2 introduction had been added.
Point 4:
In section 3 the results are not discussed and conveniently supported by the open literature. An absence of discussion is unacceptable because, in this context, questionable conclusions are obtained. This reflects the poor state of the art mentioned earlier. The static bending curves and compressive curves are expected, and the damage mechanisms must be described. Figures are marginally described. Therefore, this section should be significantly improved
Response 4:
Thank you for your comments.
Few discussions had been improved.
Sorry, we don’t have static bending and compressive curves because data does not exist due to data logger storage error.
Point 5:
In conclusion, the paper must be significantly improved, because it is closer to a technical note/academic report than to a scientific document. In this context, I suggest to the authors a great effort to improve the paper in order to be published.
Response 5:
Thank you for your comments.
Conclusion had been updated.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review comments on Appplsci-78736
This paper presents an experimental program on compressive and flexural strength of slurry-infiltrated fiber-reinforced cementitious composites after exposure to high temperature. Although the tests are simple, this work is useful which can be considered to be published in the journal Applied Sciences after revisions. The comments by the reviewer are listed as follows.
1 The highest temperature of the exposure should be mentioned in the Abstract and Section 2.3.
2 In abstract, there are some grammar errors in the sentence in lines 19-20. Please further check and improve the language of the paper.
3 The authors should provide enough evidences for the conclusion “insignificant” effect. In the current version, the degree of insignificant is not convincing.
4 Usually, fibers and polymer matrix have a great mechanical degradation due to high temperature. This statement can be mentioned in the introduction part. The following paper is recommended to be referred to: “Degradation of the in-plane shear modulus of structural BFRP laminates due to high temperature”.
5 More figure for the used materials such as hooked-end steel fibers and polymer powder can be added in Section 2.
6 The comma before “[11, 13]” in line 67 should be deleted.
7 All the discussion in this paper are compressive performance then flexural performance. So, in Line 90, “flexural and compressive” should be revised to “compressive and flexural”.
8 Which test was applied with the loading rate of 1 mm/min? The authors need to clarify it. And what is the loading rate for another test?
9 What is gauge length of the applied LVDT in Fig 1a?
10 In Fig 1a, the strain gauges were used to measure the deformation. It was not mentioned and the results were not reported.
11 The symbols, such as P, L,d, T, and t, in lines 106 to 114 should be italic.
12 Why did the authors use 1 hour for high temperature exposure? What is the criterion for selection of this exposure time? If exposing 0.5 or 5 hours, how will the mechanical performance be?
13 The authors are suggested to add one more figure about the high temperature exposure.
14 In conclusion No. v, it is not scientific to say “a small amount”. Please adjust the presentation and give details of the amount.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
This paper presents an experimental program on compressive and flexural strength of slurry-infiltrated fiber-reinforced cementitious composites after exposure to high temperature. Although the tests are simple, this work is useful which can be considered to be published in the journal Applied Sciences after revisions. The comments by the reviewer are listed as follows.
Point 1:
The highest temperature of the exposure should be mentioned in the Abstract and Section 2.3.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comments.
Mentioned in the Abstract and Section 2.3.
Point 2:
In abstract, there are some grammar errors in the sentence in lines 19-20. Please further check and improve the language of the paper.
Response 2:
Thank you for your comments.
It has been corrected.
Point 3:
The authors should provide enough evidences for the conclusion “insignificant” effect. In the current version, the degree of insignificant is not convincing.
Response 3:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been corrected.
Point 4:
Usually, fibers and polymer matrix have a great mechanical degradation due to high temperature. This statement can be mentioned in the introduction part. The following paper is recommended to be referred to: “Degradation of the in-plane shear modulus of structural BFRP laminates due to high temperature”.
Response 4:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been added.
Point 5:
More figure for the used materials such as hooked-end steel fibers and polymer powder can be added in Section 2.
Response 5:
Thank you for your comments.
Figure had been added.
Point 6:
The comma before “[11, 13]” in line 67 should be deleted.
Response 6:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been corrected.
Point 7:
All the discussion in this paper are compressive performance then flexural performance. So, in Line 90, “flexural and compressive” should be revised to “compressive and flexural”.
Response 7:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been revised.
Point 8:
Which test was applied with the loading rate of 1 mm/min? The authors need to clarify it. And what is the loading rate for another test?
Response 8:
Thank you for your comments.
Loading rate is same for both test and it had been corrected in manuscript.
Point 9:
What is gauge length of the applied LVDT in Fig 1a?
Response 9:
Thank you for your comments.
It has been updated in section 2.3.
Point 10:
In Fig 1a, the strain gauges were used to measure the deformation. It was not mentioned and the results were not reported.
Response 10:
Thank you for your comments.
Strain gauge was used to measure Poisson’s ratio.
However, due to the material characteristics of the SIFRCC used in this study, the Poisson’s ratio was about 0.3, which was similar to that of steel, only few specimens were tested, so the results were excluded from this paper.
Further research also plans to analyse the material properties of SIFRCC more precisely.
Point 11:
The symbols, such as P, L,d, T, and t, in lines 106 to 114 should be italic
Response 11:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been corrected.
Point 12:
Why did the authors use 1 hour for high temperature exposure? What is the criterion for selection of this exposure time? If exposing 0.5 or 5 hours, how will the mechanical performance be?
Response 12:
Thank you for your comments.
First of all, fire resistance test time was set to meet fire resistance performance standards in Korean structures.
In general, for structures with combustion structures (walls, columns, floors, beams) in Korea, fire resistance criteria (ISO 834) are required to meet under 538℃ in rebars within one hour.
Mechanical properties for 0.5 hours are similar to those for 1 hour. Because the temperature corresponding to 30 minutes on the ISO 834 fire curve is more than 850℃.
It also did not take into account the five-hour fire resistance test. This is because the actual general structure does not have five hours of continuous fire.
Point 13:
The authors are suggested to add one more figure about the high temperature exposure.
Response 13:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been added.
Point 14:
In conclusion No. v, it is not scientific to say “a small amount”. Please adjust the presentation and give details of the amount.
Response 14:
Thank you for your comments.
It has been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The article “Effect of exposure to high temperatures on the mechanical properties of SIFRCCs” has been improved, but some details still need to be polished for future publication.
Point 1:
For example, in the Abstract, “0% polymer SIFRCCs” is not acceptable. Authors should replace by other scientific terminology. English should be improved, for example, this sentence “The compressive and flexural strengths decreased was significant after exposure to high temperature in comparison with normal SIFRCCs because the powder polymer melts during high temperature exposure create voids …” is not acceptable.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comments.
It has been updated.
Point 2:
In terms of “Introduction”, the state-of-the-art was improved, but the main references still missing. In this context, authors are kindly invited to include them. English should be improved.
Response 2:
Thank you for your comments.
Few references had been added.
Point 3:
Relatively to section 2 (Materials and Methods), authors assumed that the tensile strength of the steel fibres is 1200 MPa and the polymer powder with a particle size of 0.1 μm to 5 μm. These values were obtained by experimental procedures or by literature? It is expected references, or the experimental results obtained. Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 3:
Thank you for your comments.
Reference had been added.
Point 4:
Figures with the distribution and accumulation functions of the particle size are expected. Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 4:
There is no part size distribution curve and accumulation functions for the polymer. We referred to the brochure provided by the company. The company website had been added in references section.
Point 5:
The name and reference of the universal testing machine is expected. Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 5:
Thank you for your comments.
Name had been added.
http://www.dongahtest.com/
Point 6:
How many samples were tested for each condition? Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 6:
Thank you for your comments.
10 specimens for each variable had been tested.
And also it had been updated to manuscript.
Point 7:
Please use mathematical symbols in equation 2 instead of characters (∗). Authors forgot to include this recommendation. Equation and reference, like authors present (?=345???10(8∗?+1)+20 (2) [10]) is incorrect and not acceptable
Response 7:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been updated.
Point 8:
In section 3 the static bending curves and compressive curves are expected. Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 8:
Thank you for your comments.
We are sorry as I answered previous review’s response, we don’t have static bending and compressive curves because data does not exist due to data logger storage error.
Point 9:
Damage mechanisms must be described. Authors forgot to include this recommendation
Response 9:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been added on result and discussion.
Point 10:
Figures are marginally described. Authors forgot to include this recommendation.
Response 10:
Thank you for your comments.
Additional description of figures had been added.
Point 11:
The discussion of the results was improved but much more is expected, which reveals the poor state of the art mentioned above.
Response 11:
Thank you for your comments.
It had been updated.
Point 12:
In conclusion, the paper must be improved. I suggest to the authors a great effort to improve the paper according with the recommendations. English should be corrected by a native.
Response 12:
Thank you for your comments.
Paper had been updated.
English language was edited by Editage, a division of cactus Communications.
Certificate of English Editing was attached below. Paper is same but only title had been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments by the reviewer has been well addressed. The paper is acceptable in the current version.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The comments by the reviewer has been well addressed. The paper is acceptable in the current version.
Response:
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “Effect of exposure to high temperatures on the mechanical properties of SIFRCCs” was significantly improved and, in this format, can be published.
