Blast Resistance of a Masonry Wall Coated with a Polyurea Elastomer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents a very interesting study on the blast resistance of masonry. To contribute to the article, some suggestions and improvements are needed, such as:
1- In the introduction, in the third line there is a punctuation error. Other errors are also identified throughout the text.
2- The application of a polymer layer on the masonry surface can cause a problem which is the reaction to fire of the system. This is not the objective of the paper, but it is important that the authors put this concern in the introduction of the manuscript.
3 - The references are not in ascending order, they should be in the same order. Besides the article has few references.
4- The article does not present logical numbering of the subchapters. The authors should separate the materials and methods from the results. Present the results in a single chapter. It is a shame to evaluate the article this way. The authors should completely revise the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comment 1
The manuscript presents an experimental and numerical study on the blast resistance of masonry walls strengthened with sprayed polyuria elastomer. Strengthened and not strengthened masonry walls specimens with 370 mm thickness, with different charges weights and different strengthening solutions were subjected to contact explosion. The results are presented and discussed, namely the typology of the observed damages. The authors conclude about the effectiveness in using polyuria elastomer to improve the resistance to damage of the masonry walls under contact explosion. Some solutions are indicated as the optimum find ones, related with the number of sides to be strengthened and thicknesses of strengthening.
The topic of the manuscript is interesting and important, since it is related with the mitigation of the effects of explosions on masonry walls, which constitute a very common solution in buildings. The results of this study could be useful to complement the knowledge in the field and also to serve as a guidance for future studies and projects.
I made some comments and suggestions to improve the article. The authors should take them into account and revise their article.
General Comment 2
I consider that the organization of the manuscript is confusing. The experimental study, findings and discussion of the results, must be firstly presented. After this, the numerical study and respective results should be presented.
Specific Comment 1
The article requires a major revision to improve the reading and correct typos. The authors should sake for professional help.
The formatting should also be revised according to the mdpi instructions for the authors, some examples: some tables are not referred in the text, “Figures” instead of “Picture”, a new section should not start with a figure, …
Specific Comment 2
Introduction
The introduction of the topic is weak and the literature review is somewhat scarce (only 14 references). Please improve the introduction to the topic and update the references list.
Specific Comment 3
Introduction
In the end of the introduction section, please explain better what is the novelty and need of the presented study, in comparison with previous similar ones referred in the literature review.
Specific Comment 4
FE models
Please add more information about the used FE models: FE families, boundary conditions, simulation of the explosion contact, simulation of the strengthening, mesh density and used convergence criteria, parameters for the dynamic analysis,…
Specific Comment 5
The graphical quality of several figures, namely the ones related with the results from FE models, must be highly improved. Also, some of these figures must be better explained in the text for the sake of the understanding by readers.
Specific Comment 6
At page 4, please explain what are “radioactive cracks” (!?)
Specific Comment 7
At page 5, text is missing to end the paragraph before Figure 3. You also must discuss much better and give physical explanations for the results presented in Figure 4.
Specific Comment 8
In the subcaption of Figure 6 (c) please revise “Test 3 …”. I think it should be “Test 2 …”.
Specific Comment 9
Please provide tables with the most important mechanical properties of all materials, including the strengthening material, used to build the masonry walls specimens.
Specific Comment 10
The validation of the FE models must be improved and based on the comparison of key parameters characterizing the behavior of the walls, and not only a description of the observed damages. Please refer to previous related studies.
Specific Comment 11
How your findings compare with the ones from previous related studies? Please add a brief discussion on this in the manuscript.
Specific Comment 12
One important key parameter to be analyzed in such kind of studies is the dissipated energy by the wall system. This parameter should be also analyzed and discussed in order to sustain better your conclusions. Please refer to previous related studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents all the skills to be published in the journal. Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval of our research and your valuable comments, and wish you a happy life.
Reviewer 2 Report
I received and read the revised version of the article “Blast resistance of Masonry Wall Coated with Polyurea Elastomer”. I consider that most of my suggestions have been properly considered by the authors and that the article was sufficiently improved. Hence, I consider that the revised article submitted by the authors can be accepted to be published.
Author Response
Thank you for your approval of our research and your valuable comments, and wish you a happy life
