Review Reports - Effect of Different Admixtures on Pore Characteristics, Permeability, Strength, and Anti-Stripping Property of Porous Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted study is reviewed carefully.
The reviewer is very disappointed by al the weaknesses of this paper and strongly suggests to the authors to greatly improve the scientific content of a possible next paper on this topic, both on the definition of the model, and the numerical / mechanical content of the results.

Also, the following comments are needed to be addressed to improve this paper:
1) In the introduction section, not only to tell the readers who has done what, the authors also should tell the readers what the differences are between your work and the published literatures. .
2) The theoretical contributes and tools described in the paper are not new. The mathematical model was not developed by the author; it contains equations from the literature. Nevertheless, the author does not mention the source of the equations presented.
3) The author should spend more time preparing the graphs presented. None of the diagrams have sufficient labeling
4) Some conclusions cannot give some results and explanation. So, the conclusions should be rewritten and simplified.
5) References are not up-to-date and adequate in the original manuscript, you should revise this part.
6) There are still grammar errors and typos in the text and they should be corrected by an author who is native English or has better writing skills.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank editors and reviewers for their insightful comments on the paper, which are tremendously useful to make the current study clearer for interested readers. The following revisions reflect all editors' and reviewers’ suggestions and comments. References cited in the response can be found in the revised manuscript with change marked.

Note:

Page and line numbers of the locations where changes have been made have been referenced in bold. (Page Numbers and line Numbers correspond to files “Revised manuscript with change marked”)

For Reviewer #1: The text highlighted in yellow represents the parts that are changed/added in the revised manuscript according to the comments of Reviewer #1.

Reviewer #1

The reviewer is very disappointed by al the weaknesses of this paper and strongly suggests to the authors to greatly improve the scientific content of a possible next paper on this topic, both on the definition of the model, and the numerical / mechanical content of the results.

Responses: The authors thank the reviewer for his valuable comments. The drawbacks of this paper have been modified.

Comment 1: In the introduction section, not only to tell the readers who has done what, the authors also should tell the readers what the differences are between your work and the published literatures. .

Responses: Thanks for your useful comment. The difference between the authors work and the published literatures was rewrtitten in the manuscript. (Page 3, line 10 to line 17)

Comment 2: The theoretical contributes and tools described in the paper are not new. The mathematical model was not developed by the author; it contains equations from the literature. Nevertheless, the author does not mention the source of the equations presented.

Responses: Thank you for this comment. The source of the equations presented in the manuscript has been added in the corresponding position. (Page 5, line 19 and line 37; Page 6, line 17 and line 34)

Comment 3: The author should spend more time preparing the graphs presented. None of the diagrams have sufficient labeling.

Responses: Thanks for your valuable suggestion. All the graphs in the manuscript has been better formatting.

Comment 4: Some conclusions cannot give some results and explanation. So, the conclusions should be rewritten and simplified.

Responses: Thanks for your comments. The conclusions has been rewritten and simplified according to the reviewer’s comments.(Page 12, line11 to line 37)

Comment 5: References are not up-to-date and adequate in the original manuscript, you should revise this part.

Responses: Thanks for your valuable advice. The authors appreciate the reviewers’ suggestion for adding more references. Therefore, some new references have been implemented in the introduction section as following:

Page 2, line 15,add the reference 17.

Alshareedah, O.; Nassiri, S. Pervious concrete mixture optimization, physical, and mechanical properties and pavement design: A review[J]. J. Clean. Prod., 2021,288:125095. (Page 15, line 43 to 44)

Page 2, line 43, add the reference 31.

Shan, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, S.; et al. Pore characteristics of pervious concrete and their influence on permeability attributes[J]. Constr. Build. Mater,2022, 327,126874. (Page 16, line 17 to 18)

Page 2, line 43, add the reference 32.

Zhong, R.; Leng Z.; Poon C. Research and application of pervious concrete as a sustainable pavement material: A state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice review[J]. Constr. Build. Mater, 2018,183:544-553. (Page 16, line 19 to 20)

Page 2, line 43, add the reference 33.

Huang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; et al. Evaluation of pore size distribution and permeability reduction behavior in pervious concrete[J]. Constr. Build. Mater, 2021, 290:123228. (Page 16, line 21 to 22)

Page 5, line 19, add the reference 41.

Montes, F.; Valavala, S.; Haselbach, M. A new test method for porosity measurements of Portland cement pervious concrete. J. ASTM Int, 2005, 2(1): 1-13. (Page 16, line 37 to 38)

Comment 6: There are still grammar errors and typos in the text and they should be corrected by an author who is native English or has better writing skills.

Responses: Thanks for your valuable comment. the whole manuscript has been revised carefully to improve the English writing.

For other modifications that make this paper to meet the requirements of a journal paper, see the highlihgted in yellow in the revised manuscript. Thanks for your valuable time and comments!

End of comments from Reviewer #1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This is important topic and some interesting content is presented, just the manuscript needs improvements mostly with English and formatting.

P2:

Line 24: Were combed… is it referred to combined?

Line 28and 31: Free-thaw cycle, should be freeze-thaw

P3:

Line 2: Become-becomes

Line 6: free-thaw

Line 31: space is missing

P7:

Line 17: closed-close to

Line 29: grammar

Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 should have better formatting

P 14:

Line 13: Cement cementitious..?

What resolution was used for CT scanning?

Author Response

Note:

Page and line numbers of the locations where changes have been made have been referenced in bold. (Page Numbers and line Numbers correspond to files “Revised manuscript with change marked”)

For Reviewer #2: The texts in red represent the revised part according to the comments of Reviewer #2.

Reviewer #2

This is important topic and some interesting content is presented, just the manuscript needs improvements mostly with English and formatting.

Responses: The authors thank the reviewer for his valuable comments. The major drawbacks of this paper have been modified mainly in the writing problem and picture formatting. Other details have been revised as well.

Comment 1: Page 2, line 24: Were combed… is it referred to combined?

Responses: Thanks for your comment. The error has been modified in the manuscript. (Page 2, line 24)

Comment 2: Page 2, line 28 and 31: Free-thaw cycle, should be freeze-thaw

Responses: Thanks for your carefull comment. The error has been revised in manuscript. (Page 2, line 28 to line 31)

Comment 3: Page 3, line 2: Become-becomes

Responses: Thanks for your comment. The error has been modified in the manuscript. (Page 3, line 2)

Comment 4: Page 3, line 6: free-thaw

Responses: Thanks for your carefull comment. The error has been revised in manuscript. ( Page 3, line 6)

Comment 5: Page 3, line 31: space is missing

Responses: Thanks for your comment. The error has been modified in the manuscript.

( Page 3, line 31)

Comment 6: Page 7, line 17: closed-close to

Responses: Thanks for your careful comments. The sentence which contain the word “closed” has been removed form the manuscript.

Comment 7: Page 7, line 29:grammer

Responses: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. There are some problems in the expression of this sentence, and the sentence has been rewritten in the manuscript.

(Page 7, line 27-29).

Comment 8: Figures 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 should have better formatting

Responses: Thanks for your valuable comments. All the Figures in the manuscript has been better formatting.

Comment 9: Page 14, line 13: Cement cementitious..?

Responses: Thanks for your comments. The word “cement cementitious” has been changed to “cement mortar” in the manuscript (Page 14, line 12)

Comment 10: What resolution was used for CT scanning?

Responses: The resolution which used for CT scanning was 1200dpi × 1200dpi( Page 5, line 30).

End of comments from Reviewer #2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is very interesting, since it carries out research on a type of concrete that is being used more and more, in order to improve its weakest points, its low resistance and the stripping of the aggregate.

The paper is well structured and the objectives clearly defined. The introduction is appropriate, as well as the methodology used. The results are very well analyzed, both individually and comparing them to each other to see the relationships between the different variables studied. The figures are clear and the research carried out is perfectly understood. The conclusions are the result of the analysis of the results obtained.

Author Response

Note:

Page and line numbers of the locations where changes have been made have been referenced in bold. (Page Numbers and line Numbers correspond to files “Revised manuscript with change marked”)

For Reviewer #3: The Text in green represent the revised part according to the comments of Reviewer #3.