Durability Investigation of Fiber-Reinforced Functionally Graded Concretes in Cold Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents experimental work on six classes of mix designs used in a bridge structure. The work presented shows consistent observations with what has been observed in literature however, there the manuscript is missing to describe the real merit to the work. It appears the merit is to show how a structure can be more efficiently designed and made more durable using application specific mix designs on the structure however, this is not fully made clear based on the experimental work presented. 

The literature review is also missing significant background and additional references that are made relevant to the experimental work proposed. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents several tests of Functionally Graded Concretes with six different formulations. The originality lies on the presented results.

The paper is free from technical errors and brings a good discussion of the results.

The paper is recommended for publication in the present form.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article entitled Durability Investigation on Fibers Reinforced Functionally Graded Concretes in Cold Region by Zaiyang Jiang, Shucheng Jin and Wenyuan Xu is a correct research paper. The introduction is very general. Linkage of the cited works with the rest of the work has not been obtained. The results of the cited works presented in the introduction are again very general and are not related to the conducted research program of the authors. No discussion of the authors' results in the context of the results of the cited works. The statement that the article specifies the proportions of concrete after many optimized dosing tests is not reflected in the content. During the analysis of the article, many doubts and questions arose:

 

• There is no information on the shapes and number of test samples in the test description. Every chapter of work we learn new information, but it is incomplete.
• Was it assessed, and how, that the concrete of the required C35 and C40 class was obtained?
• How were the compositions of the individual concrete mixes selected?
• What was the basis for the selection of basic mixture components (cement reduction, workability)?
• What does the term "steel-like fiber" mean and what does this additive look like?
• Research methods quite poorly described. The reference to standards is not enough. There are no photos from the research.
• Why are not all test results provided, and are they based only on the average result?
• How large are the scattering of the results of individual studies?
• In my opinion, two different concrete of class C35 and C40 were tested and the obtained test results should not be combined and analyzed together. We can talk about the observed trends and results, but obtained for individual mixtures # 1, # 2 and # 3 as well as # 4, # 5 and # 6.
• The research results obtained are rather obvious. The addition of fibers has a significant impact on shrinkage and resistance to early cracking, and the densification of the structure affects the results of concrete tightness and frost resistance tests.
• In Figure 4, in my opinion, you should not combine all the points with each other. Separate mixtures # 1, # 2 and # 3 and # 4, # 5 and # 6. You can then observe similar trends in resistance to early cracking for both concretes of the C35 and C40 classes.
• The description of the test for water permeability through concrete is not legible. On what samples were the determinations made? Has water leakage been observed?
• The conclusions are too general and rather obvious
• Lack of discussion of the results obtained in relation to the knowledge already possessed contained in the quoted articles.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well-written and organized. It is an important area of research.  Accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper about the “Durability Investigation on Fibres Reinforced Functionally Graded Concretes in Cold Region” is reviewed. Author needs to provide the description of some critical parts of the study. Therefore, the present work is rejected due to the following comments;

 

1-      Abstract could be more informative by providing results. Please include some results at the end of the abstract.

2-      Although the literature is very scarce….please provide more evidence for this outcome. Please include the latest references against the Fibres Reinforced Functionally.

3-      The introduction needs to be more emphasized on the research work with a detailed explanation of the whole process considering past, present and future scope. Please provide the summery of the literature review in the form of the table.

4-      As the mentioned topic is not new, many researcher addresses this problem. How the present study gives more accurate results than previous studies? It needs to be strengthened in terms of recent research in this area with possible research gaps. It is strongly recommended to add a recent literature.

5-      Research gaps should be highlighted more clearly and future applications of this study should be added.

6-      Please include the summary of whole work at the last paragraph of the introduction. This is the critical part, which is missing in the submitted work.

7-      Please reduce the section 3, as it include more basic information of the chemical composition. Also, please described the purpose of the figure 3?

8-      Author use different abbreviation at different places, which confused the reader, Please provide the list of the abbreviation, please use in the start.

9-      Please increase the text in the figure, please also highlight the outcome of each figure by using red circle in each figure (where applicable).

10-  Please provide the purpose of Figure 5?

11-  Please kindly make revision on the language of the paper presentation. There are still some minor typos and grammatical errors.

12-  In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work, and future directions should be added.

The author needs to address the abovementioned points for the betterment of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

The issue of statistical analysis is wholly omitted in the entire publication. In the article, the part related to the experiment's methodology needs to be rewritten. There is a lack of primary data on the materials used. There are no methods to measure the samples. The results lack surface characterisation methods such as SEP or SEM. Fig 1 error bars for the measurements are missing. Same in Figure 2. Part of the discussion lacks reference to the current state of knowledge.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan Xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please provide a major review on the article's English language. There are several sentence fragments and poor choices of wording. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the answers and for completing the article. I'm mostly satisfied. In my opinion, a few issues have not been fully explained.

1) Was it assessed that the desired C35 and C40 class concrete was obtained and how? It is known that the compressive strength tests are carried out in a stress press. From these tests, values are obtained that do not fully correspond to the strength, e.g. 35 or 40 MPa. Based on the obtained research results, we can use average or characteristic values in the further part of the analyzes. How was it in this case? What were the scattering of research results?

2) Basic parameters of the fibers used for the concrete are not given (e.g. diameter, length, shape, strength parameters)

3) I still think that in figure 6 (in the current version of the article) all the points should not be connected with each other with a line. This is not a continuous chart. Similar trends in the resistance to early cracking can be observed independently for both C35 and C40 class concretes.

4) Lack of discussion of the results obtained in relation to the already possessed knowledge contained in the quoted articles. Has no one previously tested the parameters of similar concretes? There are no results in the literature to compare them with your own?

5) Please pay attention to the units in the added fragments, there is e.g. mpa and it should be MPa (lines 348-351).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

A  good article. It May interest the readers of the magazine. The cited works are up-to-date. The approach to the topic is exhaustive. I recommend the publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their review of the manuscript and valuable suggestions. All comments have been carefully considered and accounted for in a revised version of the manuscript.

thanks,

Wenyuan xu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx