Study on the Influence Mechanism of Dynamic Properties in PVA-Fiber-Reinforced Rubber Concrete Under High-Temperature- and Erosion-Induced Damage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend that the manuscript be accepted provided that the following revisions are made:

1. The abstract is too long and should be shortened to clearly and concisely present the aim, originality, methodology, and key findings of the study.

2. The introduction contains unnecessary repetitive statements. These should be reviewed and removed.

3. There are writing and numbering errors (for example, in Section 3 and Section 2.2).

4. The reason why the erosion duration was selected as 60 days should be explained and added to the manuscript.

5. Standard deviation values and error bars should be included.

6. All mechanical results should be numerically compared with results reported in the literature. The discussion section is insufficient and should be strengthened.

7. Microstructural analysis was limited to SEM images. The study should be supported with additional techniques such as XRD, TGA, and FTIR. Moreover, the observations identified in the SEM images should be clearly explained.

8. The reason for selecting only a single concrete mixture should be justified and included in the manuscript.

9. Visuals related to the fibers should be added to the manuscript.

10. SEM images showing the fibers should be included, and their relationship with the mechanical properties should be supported and discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research provides valuable insights into the effects of high temperature and salt erosion. I have a few suggestions to enhance clarity and strengthen the paper. Please refer to the detailed report for specific feedback. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Could you provide comparative data for higher temperatures (e.g., 500℃) or longer erosion periods (>60 days) to expand the generalizability of the conclusions?
2. In the data analysis, it is suggested to indicate the standard deviation or error range from repeated experiments (e.g., ANOVA, root mean square error) to enhance the reliability of the conclusions.
3. In section 4.1, when analyzing the phenomenon of "strength occasionally increasing after soaking in clear water," attributing it to "short-term strengthening effect of moisture" is too arbitrary; a more in-depth analysis should incorporate capillary pressure or the secondary hydration mechanism of unhydrated cement.
4. The manuscript presents SEM images, which is good, but it only shows the data for 300℃; this seems insufficient to comprehensively verify the impact of temperature gradients. If comparisons at 100℃ and room temperature or other typical temperatures are included, the scientific value of the research would be significantly enhanced.
5. The existing references lean heavily towards Chinese research (e.g., Jia Bin, Mo Jinxu, etc.). It is recommended to supplement with the latest findings from international journals and related scholars on the high-temperature behavior of PVA concrete, such as papers from Cement and Concrete Composites.
6. In the conclusion section, it should specify what work was done in the research and then present the specific conclusions; the current format is too abrupt.
7. The figures and tables in the manuscript need further optimization, such as changing "kg/m3" in Table 1 to "kg/m³." The correspondence between "sample number" and "treatment temperature" in Table 2 is also not intuitive. All figures should have a closed border

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper focuses on the influence of the sequential coupling effect of "high-temperature pretreatment-salt erosion" on the dynamic mechanical properties of PVA fiber-reinforced rubber concrete, breaking through the limitation that existing studies mostly investigate the single factor of high temperature or erosion independently. The research results provide direct reference significance for the evaluation of the dynamic bearing capacity of actual structures. However, the paper has the following problems.  

1. Incomplete mix proportion design information. Table 1 only lists the parameters of sand, rubber particles and PVA fibers, and the dosage of other components is supplemented in the notes, but the substitution object for the 5% replacement rate of rubber particles is not specified.  
2. The selection basis for the PVA fiber length (18 mm) and content (1.2 kg/m³) is not explained, and no relevant research or pre-experimental data is cited to support the rationality of these parameters.  
3. Table 2 only labels the temperature and does not directly correspond the erosion solution to each specimen number, which needs to be deduced in combination with the notes, resulting in poor readability; there are typos in some group numbers (e.g., whether G30-2 should be G300-2).   The concentration of the erosion solution is not clearly defined as mass fraction or volume fraction, and the ambiguity of this core parameter affects the repeatability of the experiment.  
4. There are some errors and unclear issues in the figures and tables.   For example, there is a typo in the group number on the abscissa of Figure 2 (G1000 should be G100-0); there are spelling errors ("mied solurian" should be "mixed solution") and repeated entries in the legend of Figure 3; the ordinate of Figure 5 is not marked with units; the magnification of SEM observation in Figure 7 is not stated, all of which affect the interpretation of the results.  
5. The correlation between macroscopic properties (e.g., the decrease in dynamic compressive strength) and microscopic mechanisms (e.g., ionic reactions, crystal formation) is not close enough. For instance, there is no quantitative analysis of the correlation between the proportion of ettringite crystals filling pores and the strength improvement.  
6. Lack of quantitative summary in the conclusion section. Only qualitative trends such as "strength decrease" and "wave velocity recovery" are described, and key quantitative indicators (e.g., a 41.3% decrease in dynamic compressive strength under 300℃ + composite salt erosion) are not prominently presented in the conclusion, making the core research results unclear.  
7. Inconsistent reference formatting.  
8. If possible, it is recommended to add a sensitivity analysis to explore the influence of parameters such as rubber particle replacement rate and PVA fiber content on the high temperature and erosion resistance of the material, so as to improve the practicality of the research.  
9. Specify the number of parallel specimens and the measures for controlling data dispersion (e.g., coefficient of variation ≤ 5%) to enhance the credibility of the experimental results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Microstructural analysis was limited to SEM images. The study should be supported with additional techniques such as XRD, TGA, and FTIR.

Author Response

Comments1：Microstructural analysis was limited to SEM images. The study should be supported with additional techniques such as XRD, TGA, and FTIR.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree that XRD, TGA, and FTIR would provide more comprehensive phase and composition analysis. However, due to current laboratory limitations, these techniques were not available in this study. Nevertheless, the SEM observations presented in our work have effectively revealed key microstructural changes—such as pore network formation, crystal generation, and interfacial deterioration—which reasonably support and correlate with the macroscopic mechanical findings. These techniques will be considered in our future work to further deepen the mechanistic understanding. In addition, we have also made minor language improvements in this revision, particularly in the Abstract and Conclusion sections, to enhance clarity and readability. All changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have respond well to the comments and reliable revisions have been made, this version can be accepted

Author Response

Thank you again for your very detailed and constructive comments, which have greatly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. In addition to the revisions made in response to the reviewers' suggestions, we have also made minor language improvements in this version, particularly in the Abstract and Conclusion sections, to enhance clarity and readability. All changes have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revised version is now suitable for publication.