Application of Graphene-Based Nanomaterials as a Reinforcement to Concrete Pavements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review investigates the effect of graphene and graphene oxide on improving the performance of cement-based composites and particularly of continuously reinforced concrete pavements. The possibilities and hinderances of using graphene and graphene oxide in cement-based composites as a reinforcement is discussed, and the potential of using graphene in continuously reinforced concrete pavements is explored. However, this review is more about analysis of experimental dates and exposition of experimental results of previous studies, which does not derive design strategies for creating new cement-based composites with improved performance. In addition, this review lacks in-depth discussion of mechanisms. Hence, I do not recommend publication of this manuscript in this prestigious journal. Except that, the following problems can be improved:
1. There are several typing errors throughout the paper.
2. The language of this review should be greatly improved.
3. In page 10, line 308. The authors said that “To overcome this issue all the results were normalized by the respective property corresponding to no dosage of graphene or graphene oxide.” However, various other aspects, such as type of graphene, superplasticizer, water to cement ratio and aggregates, can also influence the mechanical properties of cement composites. The combined effect of these other aspects and graphene or graphene oxide is greater than the sum of the two single aspects (i.e. 1+1 ＞ 2). Hence, whether the method of normalized processing data is correct is worth further investigation.
4. In page 11, line 330. The method of statistical linear regression analysis should be elaborated.
5. In page 11, line 342. The authors said that “The derived equation for GO based cementitious composites from the existing experimental data is given in Equation 3(a) below.” The source of “the existing experimental data” and the theoretical deduction of the equation should be clarified.
6. Can the authors clarify the reasons for the change of the mechanical properties of cement composites from the perspective of the interaction force between graphene and graphene oxide and cement materials?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reviewed the effect of graphene and graphene oxide on the performance of cementitious composites and particularly of continuously reinforced concrete pavements (CRCP). The research subject could be interesting for the readers. The overall structure and literature contents are enough for a review paper. However, based on the current format, it cannot be accepted as a review paper, the main comments are shown in below:
General Comments
1) Title: The term of reinforcement is improper for the pavement, please change it. The Graphene is suggested to change to graphene based materials because Graphene and Graphene oxide are included in this paper.
2) Abstract: The motivation of the review should be highlighted in abstract, in particular, the difference between pavement and other applications. And the main finding from the authors is suggested to presented as well. Why this paper is focusing on CRCP, this should be mentioned in either title of abstract.
3) Keywords: pavement performance to too board.
4) Introduction: Line 28. What is rigid pavement and its difference between “normal” pavement should be presented. Line 47 graphene based nano material is not belong to fibre. Line 51, the full name of CRCP should not be appeared with abbr. and the definition of CRCP is missed. Line 58, why the author discussed rebar again without any explanation about its relationship with fibre? The logic link is quite strange. Line 64, why a CRCP appears again which means different things? Generally, it is suggested that the different type of pavement should be compared and then the authors can move to CRCP.
5) Pavement distresses and need for fibres: Line 103 concrete pavements CRCP, duplicated. The requirement of the fibre is not clearly presented.
6) Graphene based nanomaterials in cement-based composites: Table 1 full name of abbr. should be given at where it first appears. For example, GO. Lines 147-153, no references support. Line 157, use bullet point to shown each method. 3.2 section title is strange, review for GO or for GO in cement, or this section is a statistic data? Why the authors use section 3.3 to describe the effect on pore structure while combined other properties in section 3.4? why there is only one subsection in section 3.4. Lines 247 the expression is strange. Fig 6, the trend line is not statistically correct. How the authors draw this line? The difference between 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 is not obvious. 3.5.3 Explain all note in equations. The authors should also indicate the resource from experimental data. Why there are two section 3.5? Based on the title and abstract, I would ask what is the relationship between the discussion and pavements? Lines 488-490, porosity is not belonging to durability. Line 515, what is S-N curves?
7) Application of graphene based nano fillers to CRCP: (a) need reference to support.
8) Some minor errors of grammar and spelling are exsiting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
please address the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been revised carefully and it can be considered for acceptance.
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of my previous comments have been carefully addressed by the authors. The paper can meet the standard for publishing in the journal.
