Dynamic Response of Electro-Mechanical Properties of Cement-Based Piezoelectric Composites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have some minor comments as follows,

*It is suggested to use “electro-mechanical” instead of using “electric-mechanical” from the title up to the end.

*The abbreviated words in the abstract should be written fully or there should be some definitions for them, such as “MTS and SHPB”.

*English; there are some ambiguous sentences and grammatical errors, such as:

“The incompatibility of the mechanical properties various between embedded pressure sensors and the matrix will cause the initiation of internal crack sources.”

“Then use the 82 cutting-casting method to prepare…”

“It indicated that the two kind of cement-based piezoelectric…”…kinds

“In this paper, Maxwell model used by Zhang [21. ] to characterize the stress relaxation effect of cement-based piezoelectric composites is referred to.”

“The sensitivity difference between the two is very small,”…between two! Or both?

Please re-check whole the paper.

*When talking about the different types of cement, it should be clear for lower-order readers. For example, the difference between type 0-3, type 1-3, and type 2-2 should be explained in detail.

*Please check line 114 for non-English words.

*All the equations should be cited unless they are presented for the first time.

Equations 1 to 4, 5, 6 and go on.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewers:

Re: Manuscript ID: applsci-1501610 and Title: Dynamic Response of Electro-mechanical Properties of Cement-based Piezoelectric Composites

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Dynamic Response of Electro-mechanical Properties of Cement-based Piezoelectric Composites ”( applsci-1501610 ). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.

We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. According to your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one.

 

Point 1: It is suggested to use “electro-mechanical” instead of using “electric-mechanical” from the title up to the end.

Response 1: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment. “electro-mechanical” has been used instead of “electric-mechanical” in the full text.

Point 2: The abbreviated words in the abstract should be written fully or there should be some definitions for them, such as “MTS" and "SHPB”.

Response 2: The abbreviations “MTS” and “SHPB” are explained where they first appear in the article. “MTS” stands for “Mechanical Testing System”.It first appears in line 111. “SHPB” stands for “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar”. It first appears in line 67.

Point 3: English; there are some ambiguous sentences and grammatical errors, such as: “The incompatibility of the mechanical properties various between embedded pressure sensors and the matrix will cause the initiation of internal crack sources.”

“Then use the 82 cutting-casting method to prepare…”

“It indicated that the two kind of cement-based piezoelectric…”…kinds

“In this paper, Maxwell model used by Zhang [21.] to characterize the stress relaxation effect of cement-based piezoelectric composites is referred to.”

“The sensitivity difference between the two is very small,”…between two! Or both?

Please re-check whole the paper.

Response 3: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background. Such as:

Change “The incompatibility of the mechanical properties various between embedded pressure sensors and the matrix will cause the initiation of internal crack sources.” to “The incompatibility of their mechanical properties with those of embedded pressure sensors and matrixes tend to facilitate internal cracks. ”

Change “It indicated that the two kind of cement-based piezoelectric…” to “It indicated that the two kinds of cement-based piezoelectric…”. The singular and plural forms of words are dealt with accordingly.

Change “In this paper, Maxwell model used by Zhang [21] to characterize the stress relaxation effect of cement-based piezoelectric composites is referred to.” to “This study refers to the Maxwell model used by Zhang [23] to characterize the stress relaxation effect of cement-based piezoelectric composites. ”

Change “The sensitivity difference between the two is very small” to “the difference in the sensitivity of type 1-3 and type 2-2 is observed to be minor”.

Point 4: When talking about the different types of cement, it should be clear for lower-order readers. For example, the difference between type 0-3, type 1-3, and type 2-2 should be explained in detail.

Response 4: We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: In the introduction part, the models of cement-based piezoelectric materials are explained, and the differences between 1-3 and 2-2 are emphasized (in line 52-58). “Type 1-3 is a two-phase piezoelectric composite comprising a one-dimensional piezoelectric ceramic column, which is arranged in a three-dimensional connected cement matrix. Type 2-2 comprises a laminated piezoelectric ceramic phase and cement interlayer. ”

Point 5: Please check line 114 for non-English words.

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. After checking and reviewing information, non-English words have been deleted

Point 6: All the equations should be cited unless they are presented for the first time.

Equations 1 to 4, 5, 6 and go on.

Response 6:We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. All equations have been cited sources：

Formulas (1)-(4) is cited in line 132;

Formula (5)-(8) is cited in line 186;

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

Sincerely

Li Yi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Dynamic Response of Electric-mechanical Properties of Cement-based Piezoelectric Composites” presents potentially interesting theme. However, I have to advise against publication, at least in the form. Text is completely unreadable which seriously decreases the quality of entire concept of the experimental work. In this for the paper is completely incomprehensible

 

If authors want to try to correct and resubmit they work the following steps are necessary:

 

- The style of the writing is confusing. The text is not easily readable. The text requires serious corrections. The English language is not good enough; it requires correction by native English language speaker. Also, the formatting is not on the point.

- Abstract is confusing and not informative enough. It should be rewritten.

- Please, do not use abbreviation sin the Abstract.

- What are type 1-3 and type 2-2 composites?

- Introduction is not written in scientific enough manner. There are no comparisons with most novel researches regarding the subject of investigation. The Introduction needs complete rewriting.

- Materials and methods are confusing and need rewriting. Entire text looks like authors used translating engine.

- The authors offer some interesting results, however the discussion has to undergo serious rewriting.

- Conclusions have to be condensed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewers:

Re: Manuscript ID: applsci-1501610 and Title: Dynamic Response of Electro-mechanical Properties of Cement-based Piezoelectric Composites

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Dynamic Response of Electro-mechanical Properties of Cement-based Piezoelectric Composites ”( applsci-1501610 ). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections.

We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration. According to your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one. Please find my revisions in the re-submitted files. According to your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. All of your questions were answered one by one.

Point 1: The style of the writing is confusing. The text is not easily readable. The text requires serious corrections. The English language is not good enough; it requires correction by native English language speaker. Also, the formatting is not on the point.

Response 1: Thank you for your careful review. We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background.

Point 2: Abstract is confusing and not informative enough. It should be rewritten.

Response 2: To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have rewritten and revised the summary to add more detailed quantitative descriptions

Point 3: Please, do not use abbreviation sin the Abstract.

Response 3: The abbreviations “MTS” and “SHPB” are explained where they first appear in the article.“MTS” stands for “Mechanical Testing System”. It first appears in line 111.“SHPB”stands for“Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar”. It first appears in line 67.

Point 4: What are type 1-3 and type 2-2 composites?

Response 4: We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: In the introduction part, the models of cement-based piezoelectric materials are explained, and the differences between 1-3 and 2-2 are emphasized (in line 52-58). “Type 1-3 is a two-phase piezoelectric composite comprising a one-dimensional piezoelectric ceramic column, which is arranged in a three-dimensional connected cement matrix. Type 2-2 comprises a laminated piezoelectric ceramic phase and cement interlayer. ”

Point 5: Introduction is not written in scientific enough manner. There are no comparisons with most novel researches regarding the subject of investigation. The Introduction needs complete rewriting.

Response 5: As for the introduction, we have rewritten part of the content according to your suggestions, added new literature and research content, and deleted part of the content not so consistent with this paper.

Point 6: Materials and methods are confusing and need rewriting. Entire text looks like authors used translating engine.

Response 6: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We give a more detailed description of the materials and methods in the article. We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript and inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by a native English speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard.

Point 7: The authors offer some interesting results, however the discussion has to undergo serious rewriting.

Response 7: Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. For the discussion part, we refer to relevant literatures and materials, and make a more accurate discussion on the existing basis. More rigorous wording is also used in expression. There is a corresponding reflection after the data and chart display in each section.

Point 8: Conclusions have to be condensed.

Response 8: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concern, we have condensed and abridged the conclusion, and kept the most important and innovative parts.

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

Sincerely

Li Yi

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors corrected all indicated errors. Manuscript can be accepted for publication.