Effect of Continuous Loading Coupled with Wet–Dry Cycles on Strength Deterioration of Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article elaborates on the coupling effect of continuous loading to different stress rates with wet-dry cycles on the compressive strength deterioration of concrete. The reviewer suggests that the paper is not accepted for publication in this journal.
General Comments:
1. The paper needs significant editing of the English language and the style required. The authors use very long sentences and structures that make it harder for the reader to follow the flow of information.
2. The mix design should be described in detail with mix proportions per cubic meter to ensure the reproducibility of the research.
3. When the researchers report the uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elasticity, it is unclear which value they are reporting. Is this the average of how many tests? If it is the average, the standard deviation should also be noted. This also applies to Figure 6, which should contain the standard deviation error bars. Furthermore, while comparing compression stress values, the authors assume that the difference is statistically significant, but this might not be true. The authors should prove statistical significance through the student T-test or ANOVA test.
4. The use of significant digits should be consistent throughout the text. For example, in table 2, some stresses are depicted with one significant digit and others with 3. One should suffice for all. This inconsistency happens throughout the text. Furthermore, some values, such as the total peak area in table 4 do not need any decimal values given the number's order of magnitude. Please revise.
5. The reference style varies throughout the text. Please check MDPI guidelines and use a consistent citation style.
6. While describing the E0 modulus, the authors should provide further details on how this value is obtained. Also, the stress-strain curves must be provided.
7. How is the strain in the compressive test calculated? In Table 3 the authors report strain in mm. The strain cannot be mm since it is an adimensional value. Furthermore, a strain value of 0.4 represents a deformation of 40%, while the typical strain at failure for concrete is 0.003.
8. While hypothesizing about the damage phenomena, the authors should provide more references to the literature supporting the statements. This general comment applies to all the results and discussion sections.
9. How many AE tests were made per sample? Which value is reported? The median? Please specify.
10. The authors should consider creating a schematic explaining the hypothesis relating pore pressure to cracking after NMR results.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, in order to answer your questions more clearly, I would like to attach a point-by-point reply in word.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This work analyzed the strength deterioration of concrete under combination of different stress levels and wet-dry cycles. The research findings can be used to predict the service life of concrete structures. In general, the methodology is clearly presented.The conclusions are consistent with experiment observations. However, there are many grammar errors in the article and some expressions are confusing. There are many sentences in this article which are extremely long and hard to follow. I would suggest authors to revise the article thoroughly to make it more readable.
-
In the second paragraph of Introduction: “As concrete is not as long as rocks that experience … … is of great significance.” This sentence is confusing and has multiple grammar errors. Please rephrase the sentence to make it clear to understand and correct grammar errors.
-
"For example, Su argued that the ... ... The stress-strain equation for damaged concrete under wet-dry cycles of sulphate solution. " This sentence is extremely long and difficult to follow. Did the author miss a period somewhere in the sentence? Please revise and break it down to shorter sentences.
-
"Combined with the current research, .. ... related to the deterioration mechanism is not made to explore. Several concepts are introduced in this single sentence. Please break it down based on the semantics for better readability.
-
"To guide the actual project more widely, ... ...: gravel: sand: water = 1:2:2:0.5. " The current introduction of the experiment material is messy. I would suggest using a table or bullet points to organize the material properties.
-
In table 1, different combinations of loading and wet-dry cycles are presented. The authors need to justify why these combinations are selected instead of others for this work.
-
"The concrete water absorption system is based on .. ... the concrete is naturally air-dried with a blower.". Please break it down based on the semantics for better readability.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, in order to answer your questions more clearly, I would like to attach a point-by-point reply in word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The submitted manuscript is well structured, the experiment is well described and the results are well explained. However, the paper does not represent anything new and is not suitable for publication due to its content, number of conducted experiments and the quality of scientific research methods for measuring and characterization. For the future work increase the number of samples and also it is necessary include more modern analytical technique and methods such as XRD, TG/DTG-DTA, FTIR and for this subject more important is SEM and CT. Also according to the experimental part of this manuscript for raw materials, it is necessary give a more data, not just some physical properties also chemical composition.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, in order to answer your questions more clearly, I would like to attach a point-by-point reply in word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper gives an investigation on the strength deterioration of concrete under continuous loading coupled with wet-dry cycles. Generally, this paper is well rewritten, and this paper can be considered after revision.
1. There are some language mistakes, and this paper should be checked and edited by a native speaker.
2. Acting as a scientific paper submitted to Journal “Sustainability”, the author should give more introductions on the sustainable concrete related to this topic and sustainable concrete. The following two references may benefit this paper.
a. Ma, Z., Shen, J., Wang, C., Wu, H. (2022). Characterization of sustainable mortar containing high-quality recycled manufactured sand crushed from recycled coarse aggregate. Cement and Concrete Composites, 132, 104629.
b. Wang, C., Wu, H., Li, C. (2022). Hysteresis and damping properties of steel and polypropylene fiber reinforced recycled aggregate concrete under uniaxial low-cycle loadings. Construction and Building Materials, 319, 126191.
3. There is no meaning for Figure 1 and Figure 5, and these figures should be deleted from the revised manuscript.
4. The author should give a comparison on the findings in this work and related references.
5. The references in Chinese should by replaced by an English paper, which is prone to be obtained by the scholars worldwide.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, in order to answer your questions more clearly, I would like to attach a point-by-point reply in word.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments:
1. The mix design in table 1 is describes in ratios that are not clear to the reviewer. Are these mass ratios? The mix design should be stated in Kg/m3.
2. While comparing compression stress values, the authors assume that the difference is statistically significant, but this might not be true. The authors should prove statistical significance through the student T-test or ANOVA test. This was not addressed.
9. How many AE tests were made per sample? Which value is reported? The median? Please specify. The response of the authors to this comment is still not clear to the reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of my concerns are addressed. I suggest publishing the manuscript in present form.
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewer for your approval
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Please accept the manuscript as it is
