Next Article in Journal
The Biomimetic Evolution of Composite Materials: From Straw Bricks to Engineering Structures and Nanocomposites
Next Article in Special Issue
Recent Advances in Strain-Hardening UHPC with Synthetic Fibers
Previous Article in Journal
3D X-ray Microscopy as a Tool for in Depth Analysis of the Interfacial Interaction between a Single Carbon Fiber and an Epoxy Matrix after Mechanical Loading
Previous Article in Special Issue
Development of Ultra-Lightweight and High Strength Engineered Cementitious Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J. Compos. Sci.
Volume 5
Issue 5
10.3390/jcs5050122
Review Report
jcs-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

Self-Healing Potential and Post-Cracking Tensile Behavior of Polypropylene Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composites

J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5(5), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5050122
by Mohit Garg 1, Pejman Azarsa 1 and Rishi Gupta 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5(5), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs5050122
Submission received: 12 April 2021 / Revised: 25 April 2021 / Accepted: 30 April 2021 / Published: 7 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue High Performance Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Composites)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

Your paper has an interesting scope and is well presented. I would only recommend two corrections:

  1. Please edit graphs of Figures 14 - 17. The present standard Excel format does not value the curves presented. Please provide a cleaner layout and better resolution.
  2. Some references are missing (e.g. lines 119, 121 and 164). Please correct this issue.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments

This paper studied PP fiber reinforced cementitious composites. The outcome is interesting for readers. However, there are several aspects that need to be improved. The reviewer can only recommend for publication if the author satisfactorily address the following comments in the revised version.

  1. Why cylindrical samples were not selected for compressive testing in Fig. 13?
  2. What’s the optimal volume of fibres that is recommended by the author?
  3. How the workability of the specimen was changed with the increase of fibres?
  4. The failure mechanism of the specimen should be discussed more clearly.
  5. The novelty of the study should be highlighted clearly at the end of introduction section. How this study is different from the published study in literature?
  6. How the outcome of this study will benefit researchers and end users? This need to be highlighted in introduction or end of conclusion.
  7. The background study on the application of short fibre cementitious composites should be improved. Recently, short fibres are introduced in 3D printed concrete [Ref: 3D-printed concrete: applications, performance, and challenges] and also used in manufacturing railway sleepers [Ref: Static behaviour of glass fibre reinforced novel composite sleepers for mainline railway track]. Suggest to include them in introduction section with proper citations to improve the background study.

I would be happy to see the revised version to understand how these comments are being addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has improved. Before delivering the proof-read version, I advise the corresponding author to format the graphs 14-17 into a clearer layout (e.g. Figure 12), which is possible using only Excel.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments.

Back to TopTop