Next Article in Journal
Sampling by Difference as a Method of Applying the Sampling Kantorovich Model in Digital Image Processing
Next Article in Special Issue
Time–Space Conflict Management in Construction Sites Using Discrete Event Simulation (DES) and Path Planning in Unity
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Particle Size Distribution Characteristics of Aerosol for Fire Detection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Safety Risk Assessment in Urban Public Space Using Structural Equation Modelling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/app13095590
Review Report
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on Impact–Echo Response of Concrete Column near the Edge

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(9), 5590; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095590
by Yunlin Liu 1, Hongbao Xu 2, Xinxin Ma 3,*, Donghua Wang 2 and Xiao Huang 2
Reviewer 1:
Raees Swati
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(9), 5590; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095590
Submission received: 2 April 2023 / Revised: 23 April 2023 / Accepted: 28 April 2023 / Published: 30 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence and Automation in Construction)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The structural dynamic model needs better mathematical details. The topic looks very generalized, must be brought into particular domain. My observations are as follows:p

1. Which specific impact/domain your model is applicable for?

2. How exactly you define, NEAR THE EDGE? How

3. talking about bigger domain BEM has its applications ofcourse, looks like ref 9 belongs to the similar research group. It must be specified with the novel parameters otherwise the degree of novelty becomes quite low.

4. Introduction needs better referencing apart from the particular group.

5. Numerical model/principle (section 2) needs complete revision. Please properly mention the boundary conditions and methods properly.

6.  Cite the equations in text and write techynically. It looks non-professional when it comes to mathematics.

7.  Figure quality overall is low and not well placed. 

8. The comparison and validation part needs better presentation.

Try to consult some similar study and explaning figures/tables/equations need proper English. You will get an idea.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

my comments are in the attached file.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear authors,

my comments regarding style and English are in attached file as well.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The points are responded perfectly.

The writing is improved and qualifies the criteria.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have went through your revised paper and notes, and I conclude, that you have addressed all my remarks. I appreciate that you have added photos of actual used equipment and photos from the in-situ measurements. If you can not present the mixture of used concrete, please add what type of concrete it was at least by its strength grade.

I agree with your revised paper and it can be published. Congrats!

Back to TopTop