Life Prediction Model of Mineral Admixture Cement Based-Materials under Early Age CO2-Erosion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, authors dealt with the proposal of prediction model of service life of concrete mixed with mineral admixtures at an early time under CO2-erosion, model parameters are determined with the particle swarm optimization (PSO) method, and the established model is verified in combination with existing literature data. It is considered that the concrete mixed with mineral admixtures under CO2-erosion is one of the important problems for the durability of the concrete. Especially the evaluation on the durability of the concrete mixed with fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace slag is very important because of utilization of the industrial by-products. Therefore it is considered that the theme of this paper is good for purpose of Journal of “Coating”. Then reviewer evaluates that this paper is very interesting and valuable.
However, it is considered that the completeness of this paper is lower than the level of the international journal.
- The experiment method of this paper is wrong and strange for the effect of the mineral admixtures such as fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace slag. The 14 days of curing age of this mineral admixture cement based-materials is very short. The reaction rate of this mineral admixture with cement is later rather than the normal cement. Especially the pozzolanic activity is very late reaction. Usually the curing age is half a year or one year for development of pozzolanic effect. The curing age is necessary for at least 28 days more over. Then, the result of this paper is wrong.
- Moreover there is no explanation of the age t (days) in this paper in comparison with existing literature data without being concerned though environmental conditions were different. It is considered that it is very difficult to compare with results of existing literature data on durability test under CO2-erosion. Unfortunately reviewer judges that this paper is still not complete. Therefore it is difficult that this paper is improved enough to be published in the in the Journal of “Coatings”.
Author Response
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as theimportant guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1:
1.The experiment method of this paper is wrong and strange for the effect of the mineral admixtures such as fly ash and ground granulated blast-furnace slag. The 14 days of curing age of this mineral admixture cement based-materials is very short. The reaction rate of this mineral admixture with cement is later rather than the normal cement. Especially the pozzolanic activity is very late reaction. Usually the curing age is half a year or one year for development of pozzolanic effect. The curing age is necessary for at least 28 days more over. Then, the result of this paper is wrong.
In recent years, the concentration of CO2 in the air is increasing year by year. At the same time, a large number of concrete members are directly exposed to the air after 14 days of curing after formwork removal. However, the current research focuses on the anti carbonation of mature concrete. Therefore, in this paper, the specimens with 14 days of curing age are used based on the background of CO2 erosion of concrete with admixture after formwork removal.
2. There is no explanation of the age t (days) in this paper in comparison with existing literature data without being concerned though environmental conditions were different. It is considered that it is very difficult to compare with results of existing literature data on durability test under CO2-erosion.)
In the carbonation model of this paper, t is the carbonation time in years. Therefore, "t is carbonization time, year" is added in the notes of all formulas. Moreover, the literature data used in the model validation are all from the results of accelerated carbonation test in accordance with GB / T 50082 after curing for less than 14 days.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes a service life prediction model for cement-based materials exposed to carbonization environment, based on existing models fitted with a numerically obtained Km coefficient, which accounts for the effect of the mineral admixtures on the carbonization speed of these materials.
The paper seems to be within the scope of the Coatings journal and the English language is acceptable.
However, when submitting a paper to any journal, attention should be paid to its requirements. For instance, the format of the references should be according to the journal’s “instructions for authors”. Moreover, sections on “author contributions” or “conflicts of interest” have to be provided, as required in the “instructions for authors”. Furthermore, a “funding” section should also be provided, separately from the “acknowledgements”, as explained in the “instructions for authors”. Therefore, careful reading of the “instructions for authors” is suggested, followed by a revision of the manuscript to fulfill the journal’s requirements.
- 1. No analysis and justification of the carbonation depth results presented in Table 1 was performed. The authors should, at least, explain the influence of the used mineral admixtures on the carbonization depth. Furthermore, what was the flowability and density of these mixtures?
- In line 42, “ABID et al.” should display the reference number. The same in lines 175-176. Similarly, in Table 2, references should be added to each model.
- In lines 92-94, the authors mention “After 14d of curing, the test specimen is taken out of the box for drying (…)”. How was the drying of the specimens accomplished? This should be mentioned in the manuscript.
- In lines 152-154, where does the data of the “60 groups of test specimens exposed to carbonization at an early stage” come from? Were these results obtained by the authors? What are their compositions, exposure conditions and testing ages? The authors only mentioned 15 compositions in Table 1. This should explained in the manuscript.
- Furthermore, the range of validity of the proposed model should reflect the tested compositions, i.e., it should say that is valid for w/c between 2 values, given that not all w/c were tested to validate this model.
- Assuming that, in Table 4, the numbers 1 to 15 refer to the mixtures presented in Table 1, the names should match the ones in Table 1.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as theimportant guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
1.No analysis and justification of the carbonation depth results presented in Table 1 was performed. The authors should, at least, explain the influence of the used mineral admixtures on the carbonization depth.
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have added Chapter 2 section 3"Results and discussion" to briefly analyze the influence of mineral admixtures on carbonation depth. Due to the limited space, this paper focuses on the establishment, comparison and verification of life prediction models of mineral admixtures concrete under early CO2-erosion.
2. In line 42, “ABID et al.” should display the reference number. The same in lines 175-176. Similarly, in Table 2, references should be added to each model.
Line 42, the reference numberwas addedafter “ABID et al.”; Line 184, the reference number was added after “Zhang Chengzhong et al.”; In Table 2, references was added to each model.
3. In lines 92-94, the authors mention “After 14d of curing, the test specimen is taken out of the box for drying (…)”. How was the drying of the specimens accomplished? This should be mentioned in the manuscript.
Line 93-94, the statements of “After 14d of curing, the test specimen is taken out of the box for drying” were corrected as “After curing for 14 days, take it out and dry it at room temperature for 1 day”.
4. In lines 152-154, where does the data of the “60 groups of test specimens exposed to carbonization at an early stage” come from? Were these results obtained by the authors? What are their compositions, exposure conditions and testing ages? The authors only mentioned 15 compositions in Table 1. This should explain in the manuscript.
The 60 sets of test data are the carbonization depth of the 15 sets of data in Table 1 obtained by the author under four different carbonization times, so there are 60 sets of data in total. The components, exposure conditions and test time of each group are shown in Table 1.Line 90, "by the author designed “was added; Line 158-160,"60 groups of test specimens exposed to carbonization at an early stage" was changed to"15 groups of test specimens exposed to carbonization under 4 different carbonization ages at an early stage (see Table 1 for details)".
5. The range of validity of the proposed model should reflect the tested compositions, i.e., it should say that is valid for w/c between 2 values, given that not all w/c were tested to validate this model.
There are two cases in the carbonization model, including W/ C < 0.6 and W/ C ≥ 0.6. The applicability of the model is verified by comparing the experimental value with the predicted value.
6. Assuming that, in Table 4, the numbers 1 to 15 refer to the mixtures presented in Table 1, the names should match the ones in Table 1.
Table 1 is the author's experimental value of carbonization test, and table 4 is the comparison between the experimental value and predicted value in reference [23]. The two tables are not related, and the names do not need to match.
Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have made correction
Reviewer 3 Report
This study provide a life prediction model for cement-based materials under early exposure to CO2 environment. Overall, the contents addressed in this paper are interesting, but the structure of the paper should be revised for easier understanding to readers.
- Chapter 3 conveys the prediction modeling. However, before modeling, the experimental results should be analyzed and discussed in detail. So that you can proceed to the modeling process. Please add "results and discussion" for the revised manuscript.
- More detailed information about the test methods and procedures should be described.
- Without the appropriate modifications per the comments, this paper cannot be recommended for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as theimportant guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #3:
1.Chapter 3 conveys the prediction modeling. However, before modeling, the experimental results should be analyzed and discussed in detail. So that you can proceed to the modeling process.
Add Chapter 2 section 3 "Results and discussion" for the revised manuscript.
Other changes:
1. The reference numbers have been reordered.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we list the revised contents in the above and mark them in red in the revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer confirmed the modified point of the revised paper. As a result, it is considered that this paper was improved enough to be published in the in the Journal of “Coatings”.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Other changes:
We have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.
Yours sincerely,
Xiaodong WEN
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Other changes:
We have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.
Yours sincerely,
Xiaodong WEN
Reviewer 3 Report
The results analysis is not sufficiently done (only one paragraph). Also, experimental details were not improved. Therefore, I cannot recommend this article to be published.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Life prediction model of mineral admixture cement based-materials under early age CO2-erosion”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #3:
1.The results analysis is not sufficiently done (only one paragraph). Also, experimental details were not improved. Therefore, I cannot recommend this article to be published.
We agree the reviewer's good advice. We have organized three parts for the section 3 of the revised manuscript, and improved the experimental details. However, due to the limited space, this paper focuses on the establishment, comparison and verification of life prediction models of mineral admixtures concrete under early CO2-erosion.
Other changes:
We have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.
Yours sincerely,
Xiaodong WEN
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
