Review Reports - Investigation of Integral and Differential Characteristics of Variatropic Structure Heavy Concretes by Ultrasonic Methods

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A reviewer requests a major revision of this article.

First, the authors need to clarify the issues raised by this treatise. The mention might be that the change in the material mechanical properties of the cross-sectional structure overtime immediately after the manufacture of the centrifugal concrete tube has been concluded, but there is no investigation why this is the answer to the problem in this study.
A reviewer guesses this is probably because the aim of this study and the objects to be solved are not organized in the Introduction chapter.

Many sentences are used to explain the methods for identifying the mechanical properties of materials based on vibrations and elastic waves, but all of them had been known and cannot be considered to be the matters that determine the assertion of this manuscript. In addition, it is extremely suspicious that any device that measures the propagation velocity of elastic waves by ultrasonic waves, which is not well known, does not show its applicability and accuracy so it is credible.

Finally, regarding the inequality of concrete properties due to the cross-sectional structure of centrifugal concrete, it is known that the consolidation effect depends on the direction in which centrifugal force acts, so what is the new result obtained in this experiment? It is also necessary to show whether the facts were presented by comparison with the results of previous research.

There is no correct formula (4).
Examine the layout and size of the chart [figure]s.
Come up with an idea of how to illustrate a result that is too simple.
Please devise a way to explain the text and present the charts for that purpose. It is necessary to review the text and reconsider the overall manuscript structure.

Author Response

A reviewer requests a major revision of this article.

A reviewer guesses this is probably because the aim of this study and the objects to be solved are not organized in the Introduction chapter.

authors reply: goals, objectives, novelty are added, lines 84-100. Studies noted by the reviewer will be given in the following article

There is no correct formula (4).

Examine the layout and size of the chart [figure]s.

authors reply: yes, there are errors in tables and figures. We have corrected in the text MPa to GPa and highlight it in the text. Table 2, 3, Figures 17, 20, 21

Come up with an idea of how to illustrate a result that is too simple.

Please devise a way to explain the text and present the charts for that purpose. It is necessary to review the text and reconsider the overall manuscript structure.

authors reply:

The results are not straightforward, it took about a year and more than ten sample tests to run the experiment and collect the research data. These comments will subsequently be taken into account by the authors and shown in the following articles. The presented results are just a part of a group of research and comparison of matrices. This paper presents the main provisions and results of studies of the variatropicity of the structure matrials with their certain processing and systematization. Some correction of the text has been done, the changes are highlighted in color.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper investigated the Integral and Differential Characteristics of Vibrated, Centrifuged and Vibro-centrifuged Concrete. The paper is well written and organized. However, the following points should be first addressed:

the title of the manuscript is too long, so more concise title is needed.
The authors should highlight the novelty of the present work.
extensive english editing are needed. Using the strong words in writing is necessary.
The conclusions should be started with give the objectives of the present study then the conclusions are stated.
The conclusions should be specific and precise with showing the future challenge.

Author Response

1. the title of the manuscript is too long, so more concise title is needed.

authors reply: article title is changed and highlighted by yellow color,

Investigation of integral and differential characteristics of variatropic heavy concretes by ultrasonic methods

2. The authors should highlight the novelty of the present work.

authors reply: novelty are added, lines 84-100

3. extensive english editing are needed. Using the strong words in writing is necessary.

authors reply: partial editing is done

4. The conclusions should be started with give the objectives of the present study then the conclusions are stated.

authors reply: partial editing is done

5. The conclusions should be specific and precise with showing the future challenge.

authors reply: conclusions are summed up according to the goals and objectives of the research. lines 738-790

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This study focuses on developing methods for experimental studies of vibrated, centrifuged and vibro-centrifuged concrete of annular cross-section. The presented techniques were proposed to determine the integral and differential properties of investigated concrete samples. The given results indicated that concrete characteristics vary according to the used technique.

The authors are encouraged to address the following comments:

The keywords; “flaw detection” and “ultrasonic diagnostic method” are not mentioned by any means through the article. The reviewer suggests to remove these keywords.
The literature review is too extended. It is recommended to focus on the literature related to the content of the current research study.
Some symbols shown in the equations (1-9) are not defined. For example; Rc.
The reviewer wants to know what basis was used to obtain the concrete samples used for testing.
Line 170: the reference of the mention standards must be stated.
In “Materials and Methods” section, the reviewer suggests to provide photos for the testing samples and testing setups of the various experiments of this study.
Line 355; was each basic sample tested at three different ages?
Line 405: how did the author apply the “scale factor” in order to correctly compare the experimental results of the samples of different sizes?
In the results, the elastic modulus seems very low for the given strength and ultimate strains. The authors need to clarify the “unit” of elastic modulus in the presented results?
Line 562; the authors should show the theoretical calculations which were used to confirm the experimental results?
A distinguish must be made between the limiting deformation (Table 2) and ultimate strain (Figures 15 and 16)
Special attention must be taken in using terminologies such as:
- Concrete goods
- Limiting deformations
- Lifting capacity
Editorial and grammatical issues such as;
- Line 339: “6003 mm3”
- Line 418: “1εR”
- Line 484 : “practically slightly”
- Line 506: “…higher and approximately equal to each other..”
- Line 510: “….to the left the maximum..”
- Line 519: “ longer and shallower”
- Figures 15 and 16: “…mm/m @ 10-4”

Author Response

authors reply: due to the desire of the reviewers, the title of the article was changed.

The authors are encouraged to address the following comments:

The keywords; “flaw detection” and “ultrasonic diagnostic method” are not mentioned by any means through the article. The reviewer suggests to remove these keywords.

authors reply: Yes, indeed the word " flaw detection" is absent in the article, it has been corrected. We corrected "ultrasonic method".

The literature review is too extended. It is recommended to focus on the literature related to the content of the current research study.

authors reply: Literature review is conducted as part of research

Some symbols shown in the equations (1-9) are not defined. For example; Rc.

authors reply: some symbols have been corrected, notation has been corrected in the text (lines 147-163, 211-214 and others are marked with yellow color)

The reviewer wants to know what basis was used to obtain the concrete samples used for testing.

authors reply: some materials have been added, see lines 356-366. Previous research materials are described in the literature [42-44 and others], see lines 367-370.

Line 170: the reference of the mention standards must be stated.

authors reply: link to guest is added, lines 217

In “Materials and Methods” section, the reviewer suggests to provide photos for the testing samples and testing setups of the various experiments of this study.

authors reply: it is added Figure 1

Line 355; was each basic sample tested at three different ages?

authors reply: yes, sample testing is described in the text

Line 405: how did the author apply the “scale factor” in order to correctly compare the experimental results of the samples of different sizes?

authors reply: in this work, the scale factor was not taken into account; only preliminary studies have been carried out and described

In the results, the elastic modulus seems very low for the given strength and ultimate strains. The authors need to clarify the “unit” of elastic modulus in the presented results?

authors reply: yes, there is an error. Correction in the text – instead of MPa are pointed now GPa

Line 562; the authors should show the theoretical calculations which were used to confirm the experimental results?

authors reply: The statistics are based on the processing of experimental data in Table 1. We must assume that the data presented are sufficient for calculations.

A distinguish must be made between the limiting deformation (Table 2) and ultimate strain (Figures 15 and 16)

authors reply: we corrected these definitions, in Figures 15 and 16, this term is the same as in the table, namely limiting deformations

Special attention must be taken in using terminologies such as:

Concrete goods

authors reply: in corresponding places in the text, we changed to “concrete products”

Limiting deformations

authors reply: in corresponding places in the text, we corrected

Lifting capacity

authors reply: in corresponding places in the text, we corrected to “tilt angle”

Editorial and grammatical issues such as;
- Line 339: “6003 mm3”