Study on Hydration Heat Release Model and Its Influence Coefficient of Addition Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe purpose of this paper is to optimize the influence coefficients of the hydration heat model of several types of multi-admixture concrete with mineral admixtures. The topic is interesting and the results give a contribution to increase the application of these SCM in concrete structures where the heat of hydration is an issue. However, this contribution is limited, since the paper does not provide a general model applicable to different types of mineral admixtures. It only provides information on how to adjust the influence coefficients. In other words, further research is required before this results can be used in the practical engineering. In my opinion, and considering the limited extension of the paper, this lacking research should also be included.
The experimental program is properly designed and the results presented are clear. The English writing could be improved. A few more remarks are included below:
1. Eq (1): add identification of the variables
2. Table 1: include reference in the table
3. Table 1: replace cement identifications by those indicated in the international standards (Eg. CEM I 42.5)
4. Replace “silicate cement” by “OPC” in the diverse occurrences in the paper
5. Table 2: include reference in the table
6. Table 3: it is not clear which is the concrete volume that corresponds to the mass values in kg; it is suggested that it is 0.008 m3; please, clarify this
7. Table 3: replace “stone” by coarse aggregates. Add some information about sand, coarse aggregates (nature, grading) and additives (superplasticizer, which one?)
8. Line 232: the authors mention “adequate mixing according to the test criteria.” Include the mixing procedure and the test criteria
9. Line 235: the authors mention “predetermined locations.” Include those locations
10. Line 243: correct the designation of the cement as mentioned above
11. Line 248: the authors mention “the extent of difference is insignificant”; improve writing, if the difference was insignificant it would not require optimization
12. Line 292: include the location in the paper where the reader can confirm that F20S0L20K0 is the concrete specimen with the lowest heat release; the expression “cooling effect” is erroneous in this context
Comments on the Quality of English Language1. Abstract: improve writing of last two sentences, avoiding repetition of words.
2. Same problem in lines 35,36
3. Lines 144-146: improve writing of last two sentences, avoiding repetition of words.
4. Line 299-300: improve writing, for instance “Total heat of hydration (Q0) of F20S0L20K0 is 270.5 kJ/kg.”
5. Figure 7: write “influence” in lowercase
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 12 and others
Supplementary cementitious materials or mineral admixtures should be categorized as additions. Admixtures are reserved to those constituents (in general polymeric) added in small amounts (up to 5% of concrete volume). To avoid confusion please change mineral admixtures to additions. For the purpose of the current article "multi-admixture concrete" should be designated as "concrete with additions" or "with supplementary cementitious materials".
Line 33
Fatigue use due to reiterated actions over a long period of time. The cracks in the scope of this paper are formed at early ages. Please remove reference to fatigue as a cause of this kind of cracking.
Line 129
The foregoing discussion is not enough to assess accuracy and applicability. Please support the decision to choose the composite exponential model on literature references.
Line 227
Is the data in Table 3 on kg by cubic meter? The volume shown in the last column can't be correct. or is it air volume? Please correct.
Line 228
The partial mass substitution of cement by an addition which density is lower, will lead to a high volume of binder (cement plus additions), and consequently of concrete. So all results on that table 2 are not by cubic meter. Please recalculate values and comment the influence of a higher binder volume on heat release.
Line 244
Where is Table 2.1 should be Table 2
Line 245
How many experiments were made with the same conditions (same concrete) to assess the dispersion of the measured results? Please provide information on that.
Line 367
Please remove the duplication of the reference number in the brackets, e.g. [1]
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors propose a study of some interest on the heat of hydration of concrete during the first days after concreting. In this case, the authors attempt to define an effective numerical simulation based on the hydration exothermic subroutine of concrete and comparative validation with the semi-adiabatic temperature-rise test were conducted. However, the study lacks certain key aspects for this manuscript to be considered valid for acceptance by this journal if certain major comments are not revised.
Introduction section
In abstract and introduction section (line 7, lines 25-26), the authors mention the importance of taking into account concrete shrinkage problems in RCS located on subway stations. However, this is something that must always be taken into account in any type of RCS (e.g. large concrete volumes, elements concreted at high temperatures, etc.). The authors should revise this part and focus the study more clearly and justifiably on subway RCS, or else refer to the fact that shrinkage and temperature must be considered in all RCS. This requires a revision of the whole introduction.
Line 47. Authors may not describe the findings of other authors by stating "etc.". This needs to be revised.
The bibliography can be more detailed and extensive. There are numerous examples in the bibliography that can be included in the authors' review.
Section 2
Similarly, when describing the Exothermic Modeling of Concrete Hydration, the descriptions are too vague and could be described in more detail (e.g. by pointing out what each component of the equations (equations 1 or 3) is).
Lines 129-131. “From the foregoing discussion on the three hydration exothermic models it is evident that the composite exponential model is the best hydration exothermic model with the best calculation accuracy and applicability” Is it possible to include any references to support this assertion?
Section “Selection of hydration exothermic models” more references are needed.
Section 3
Line 176. Which test are you referring to? Authors should include references. In many parts of the text there are no references that are necessary to follow the work properly.
Section 3.2.
Lines 209-211. Los autores deberían indicar el sistema de seguimiento y el sistema de prueba que se utilizó.
Lines 219-227. The authors should describe in more detail or reference the products they used (e.g. what type of cement was used, from which company, etc.). Similarly, this should also be done with the additions used. Also with the additive used. In no case is the size of the aggregates used indicated.
Section 4
Lines 268-277. The authors state that the coefficient "a" has an influence on the maximum temperature that can be reached. However, they also indicate that it affects the time/age at which this temperature is reached. However, analysing the representation in figure 5 shows no influence on age, but it does have an influence on the maximum temperature reached. The authors must revise this part.
Section 4.2.
Lines 291-292: "According to the experimental analysis, F20S0L20K0 is the concrete specimen with the best cooling effect". In no case do the authors show the experimentally obtained results of the 8 concretes presented in Table 3.
The authors choose F20S0L20K0 as reference concrete to fit their model and then in table 5 they show results of only 4 concretes, when they have previously presented 8 concretes (table 3). This part of the manuscript requires further refinement, as the authors should include experimental results that validate that the designed model is effective (include more data and figures, validations, error or deviation from the real one and the model created for different types of concrete with different types of dosages, etc.).
Conclusions
In line with the above, the conclusions must be refined.
General comment
In no case is the temperature-compressive strength ratio of concrete mentioned. It is very difficult to understand why the authors do not mention it anywhere in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe following comments were not adequately responded to:
This contribution is limited, since the paper does not provide a general model applicable to different types of mineral admixtures. It only provides information on how to adjust the influence coefficients. In other words, further research is required before this results can be used in the practical engineering.
Comments 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my comments regarding the English writing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made several modifications and the manuscript has reached a level that meets the journal's standards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis report does not add anything different in relation to previous response from the authors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNothing to comment
