Innovative Design Concept of Cooling Water Tanks/Basins in Geothermal Power Plants Using Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete with Enhanced Durability
, Francesco Animato 3, Francesco Lo Monte 1, Iacopo Mazzantini 3, Massimo Luchini 3, Sandra Scalari 3 and Liberato Ferrara 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In Figure 3, the height of the DB sample is 10 cm and the TB sample is 25 cm - but the figure shows 3 times more height of the DB sample. The figure is incorrect.
The caption of Figure 3 is incorrect. It is not clear why the force is once denoted as P/2 and once as F.
It is not clear what the gray box in the graph shown in Figure 4 means.
The authors determine the stress according to formula (1), but do not specify the units in which they obtain the result (I draw your attention to this because there is no number/coefficient in the formula that would allow you to obtain the result in MPa, for the values b, h, P and L assumed in the figure).
Table 1 shows the composition of the UHDC mixes, but it is not clear in what units the values in the table are given. As I believe, these values are given in kg/m3. No information is available on the slag and steel fibers used.
Almost all the figures in the manuscript need quality improvement. There are errors on them (e. g. Figure 3), ambiguities (e. g. Figure 4) and some of the drawings are of very poor quality (e. g. Figure 5 is too large).
The presented topic is interesting, but the quality of preparation of the manuscript is very poor.
The article also needs linguistic corrections.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
we are thankful to you to spend your valuable time to review this article and provide the corresponding comments for the improvement of the manuscript. In the following sections, we are providing the explanations/revisions in the manuscript as per the comments of reviewers. Moreover, we have noticed that major changes in the quality and size of figures have been altered when the manuscript was implemented in the journal tamplet and now they are changes to their original size and format, as per reviwers’ suggestions, major English revisions have been conducted on the manuscript.
Reviewer 1:
C1: In Figure 3, the height of the DB sample is 10 cm and the TB sample is 25 cm - but the figure shows 3 times more height of the DB sample. The figure is incorrect.
Answer: The authors thank the reviewers for pointing out this issue , the thickness of TB sample is changed to 25mm and the DB changed to 100mm.
C2: The caption of Figure 3 is incorrect. It is not clear why the force is once denoted as P/2 and once as F.
Answer: The p/2 is the point load applied to perform the flextural test of DB and TB.However, the F load is the load applied to DEWST to perform the undirect tensile test. an explaination was added to the caption of figure 3.
C3: It is not clear what the gray box in the graph shown in Figure 4 means.
Answer: The gray box illustrating the depth of the thin beam (TB) and deab beam (DB ). An explaination is added to the figure to make it clear.
C4: The authors determine the stress according to formula (1), but do not specify the units in which they obtain the result (I draw your attention to this because there is no number/coefficient in the formula that would allow you to obtain the result in MPa, for the values b, h, P and L assumed in the figure).
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, the unites in figure3 are changed to mm and the unit of the load is explicitly mentioned in the text as N.
C5: Table 1 shows the composition of the UHDC mixes, but it is not clear in what units the values in the table are given. As I believe, these values are given in kg/m3. No information is available on the slag and steel fibers used.
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, the unites of the UHDC mixes were added in table1 , table 2 was added to explain the chemical composition of the employed cement and slag. The steel fiber is supplied by the (Azichem ltd) whose charestrsetrc dimentions and mechanical properties were inserted in page6 section 3.2.
C6: Almost all the figures in the manuscript need quality improvement. There are errors on them (e. g. Figure 3), ambiguities (e. g. Figure 4) and some of the drawings are of very poor quality (e. g. Figure 5 is too large)
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, all the figures have been modified and corrected, figure3 and 4 have been corrected as pointed out by the reviewer.
C7: The presented topic is interesting, but the quality of preparation of the manuscript is very poor.
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, the manuscript is rearranged accordingly.
C8: The article also needs linguistic corrections.
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, all the grametical and editorial mistakes have been corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This submitted article studied on the structural and mechanical behavior of a water tank/basin. The research content and procedure are very good, the manuscript is very well written and easy to understand. It may be published in the journal after addressing the some following comments.
- Section 3.1, values of each concrete strength were selected from Codes? How much measured strengths of concrete were? were there no measured values?
- how much design/measured compressive strengths of UHDC were?
- All symbols should be italic.
- Some texts in figures were too small or too large, please consistently unify the font size.
- In page 9, 200 x 200 mm2 --> mm2
- Is there the input form about flexural tensile? Reviewer know that there are input form as modulus of Elasticity, Poisson`s ratio, Thermal, and Density. How did you consider high flexural strength in MIDAS Gen? and which version?
- MIDAS Gen is considered to Winkler model?
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
we are thankful to you to spend your valuable time to review this article and provide the corresponding comments for the improvement of the manuscript. In the following sections, we are providing the explanations/revisions in the manuscript as per the comments of reviewers. Moreover, we have noticed that major changes in the quality and size of figures have been altered when the manuscript was implemented in the journal tamplet and now they are changes to their original size and format, as per reviwers’ suggestions, major English revisions have been conducted on the manuscript.
C1: This submitted article studied on the structural and mechanical behavior of a water tank/basin. The research content and procedure are very good, the manuscript is very well written and easy to understand. It may be published in the journal after addressing the some following comments.
Answer: We appreciate all the positive comments.
C2: Section 3.1, values of each concrete strength were selected from Codes? How much measured strengths of concrete were? were there no measured values?
Answer: Schmidt hammer (rebound hammer) tester was used to evaluate the concrete compressive stress of the reinforced concrete walls and the foundation. The results indicated average values of 28-37 MPa as converted to characteristic cylindrical values.( this text was added under section 3.1)
C3: how much design/measured compressive strengths of UHDC were?
Answer: The designed compressive strength is 100 MPa and no measured value was conducted .However, the instantaneous modulus of elasticity Ecm = 41.7 GPa was calibrated based on DEWST and by invers analysis of flexural test was used to evaluated the compressive strength of the UHDC , detailed information can be found on (Tensile behaviour identification in Ultra-High Performance Fibre Reinforced Cementitious Composites: indirect tension tests and back analysis of flexural test results) which is cited under section 3.2. UHDC (basins 2 and 3).
C4: All symbols should be italic.
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, all the symbols have been modified to be italic.
C5: Some texts in figures were too small or too large, please consistently unify the font size.
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, all the figures and mistakes have been corrected.
C6: In page 9, 200 x 200 mm2 --> mm2
Answer: As per reviewer’s suggestion, the unites format was corrected.
C7: Is there the input form about flexural tensile? Reviewer know that there are input form as modulus of Elasticity, Poisson`s ratio, Thermal, and Density. How did you consider high flexural strength in MIDAS Gen? and which version?
Answer: Only linear elastic analysis was conducted using the MIDAS Gen 2012 , so no need to consider the flexural strength.
C8: MIDAS Gen is considered to Winkler model?
Answer: The one we used is from 2012, and it is capable of performing the Winkler model.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No more comments.
