New System to Determine the Evolution of the Dynamic Young’s Modulus from Early Ages in Masonry Mortars
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is very interesting, but there are some typing errors or some minor changes that should be done, or some thing that should be improved for better understanding of topic.
Page 2, row 48-50: Text in spanish language - it should be translated
Table 3 – unit for density is kg/m3 not Kg/m3
In table 4 the analysis of water is given. Is this drinkable water?
Page 11, row 299: N/mm2, should be N/mm2
Figure 9: Iti s clear from the text what is the meaning of bars and dashed lines, but it will be better if that was clearly describbed directly on diagram from figure 9.
Figure 10: The same comment as for figure 9
Page 13, row 336: mm3, should be mm3
Figure 11: Vertical axis is denoted as Shrrinkage. Below, in figure caption, there is Retraction. It should be harmonized in text and on the diagram.
Figure 12: The same comment as for figure 11
Page 13, row 338: behind word „agreggate“ is dot then comma – this is typing error
Page 14, row 353-358: The text seems like it shouldnt be there, or something is missing. Beginning of the sentence is unclear.
Page 15, row 374 – What is biker specimen? This is the firs appearance of that term in the paper
Page, row 379-382 – This two sentences sohuld be one …
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their comments and their positive assessment. All the modifications indicated have been made.
Page 2, row 48-50: Text in Spanish language - it should be translated
The indicated phrase has been translated.
Table 3 – unit for density is kg/m3 not Kg/m3
The units have been changed according to the revision.
In table 4 the analysis of water is given. Is this drinkable water?
It is drinking water from the Community of Madrid, suitable for human consumption.
Page 11, row 299: N/mm2, should be N/mm2
The units have been changed according to the revision.
Figure 9: It is clear from the text what is the meaning of bars and dashed lines, but it will be better if that was clearly described directly on diagram from figure 9. Figure 10: The same comment as for figure 9
The graphic in the figure caption has been described in more detail for ease of understanding.
Page 13, row 336: mm3, should be mm3
Units have been changed according to the revision.
Figure 11: Vertical axis is denoted as Shrinkage. Below, in figure caption, there is Retraction. It should be harmonized in text and on the diagram. Figure 12: The same comment as for figure 11
The wording has been homogenized with the appropriate word Shrinkage.
Page 13, row 338: behind word “aggregate” is dot then comma – this is typing error
The reported bug has been corrected.
Page 14, row 353-358: The text seems like it shouldn’t be there, or something is missing. Beginning of the sentence is unclear.
The sentence has been revised.
Page 15, row 374 – What is biker specimen? This is the first appearance of that term in the paper
The sentence has been revised.
Page, row 379-382 – This two sentences should be one
The sentence has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Extensive editing of the English language and style is required.
Some technical terms are incorrectly translated into English and do not correspond to the usual technical terminology (e.g. flexion). Some words seem to have an inappropriate meaning (e.g. biker) and make sentences understanding complex. Two sentences are in Spanish (lines 40-50 of the paper and acknowledgments). Impersonal writing should be used in the paper.
The text organization and the quality of presentation need to be revised.
Some sentences are repeated (e.g. lines 242-243 of the paper).
The introduction could be improved, providing a better background and state-of-the-art.
The research should be set in a wider context concerning the assessment of the elastic modulus of mortar and masonry. Several papers differently concern this topic, such as:
- Mustafa, M. Mahmoud, A. Abdulraheem, S. Furquan, A. Al-Nakhli, M. BaTaweel. “Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Mechanical Behavior for Dry and Saturated Cement Mortar”. Materials 2019, 12(20).
- Deniz, S. Erdoğan. “Prediction of Elastic Moduli Development of Cement Mortars Using Early Age Measurements”. J. of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2015,
- Guadagnuolo, M. Aurilio, A. Basile, G. Faella. “Modulus of Elasticity and Compressive Strength of Tuff Masonry: Results of a Wide Set of Flat-Jack Tests”. Buildings 2020, 10(5).
- Gil, E. Bernat-Masó, F. Cañavate. “Changes in Properties of Cement and Lime Mortars When Incorporating Fibers from End-of-Life Tires”. Fibers 2016, 4(1).
- Zhao, D. Huang, X. Wang, X. Chen. “Dynamic elastic modulus of cement paste at early age based on nondestructive test and multiscale prediction model”. J. of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater. Sci. Ed. 2014, 29
The acronym of the mortar samples should be unique throughout the paper (e.g. it seems to be different between text and Table 5 in Section 2.2.5).
The relation between static and dynamic values of elastic modulus should be explained to provide greater scientific soundness to the results obtained.
The conclusions can be improved by better explaining the result outcomes and their relation with the mechanical properties of mortar and masonry.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the corrections presented that have helped to improve the scientific quality of the document.
Some technical terms are incorrectly translated into English and do not correspond to the usual technical terminology (e.g. flexion). Some words seem to have an inappropriate meaning (e.g. biker) and make sentences understanding complex. Two sentences are in Spanish (lines 40-50 of the paper and acknowledgments). Impersonal writing should be used in the paper. The text organization and the quality of presentation need to be revised
The language of the document has been revised and the errors found in the indicated words have been corrected.
Some sentences are repeated (e.g. lines 242-243 of the paper).
The bug has been fixed.
The introduction could be improved, providing a better background and state-of-the-art. The research should be set in a wider context concerning the assessment of the elastic modulus of mortar and masonry. Several papers differently concern this topic, such as:
- Mustafa, M. Mahmoud, A. Abdulraheem, S. Furquan, A. Al-Nakhli, M. BaTaweel. “Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Mechanical Behavior for Dry and Saturated Cement Mortar”. Materials 2019, 12(20).
- Deniz, S. Erdoğan. “Prediction of Elastic Moduli Development of Cement Mortars Using Early Age Measurements”. J. of Materials in Civil Engineering, 2015,
- Guadagnuolo, M. Aurilio, A. Basile, G. Faella. “Modulus of Elasticity and Compressive Strength of Tuff Masonry: Results of a Wide Set of Flat-Jack Tests”. Buildings 2020, 10(5), :84, DOI: 10.3390/buildings10050084
- Gil, E. Bernat-Masó, F. Cañavate. “Changes in Properties of Cement and Lime Mortars When Incorporating Fibers from End-of-Life Tires”. Fibers 2016, 4(1).
- Zhao, D. Huang, X. Wang, X. Chen. “Dynamic elastic modulus of cement paste at early age based on nondestructive test and multiscale prediction model”. J. of Wuhan University of Technology-Mater. Sci. Ed. 2014, 29
The references indicated by the reviewer in the introduction have been included.
The acronym of the mortar samples should be unique throughout the paper (e.g. it seems to be different between text and Table 5 in Section 2.2.5).
The document nomenclature has been standardized.
The relation between static and dynamic values of elastic modulus should be explained to provide greater scientific soundness to the results obtained. The conclusions can be improved by better explaining the result outcomes and their relation with the mechanical properties of mortar and masonry.
The conclusions have been improved as indicated by the reviewer and the explanations have been expanded.
