Electrical Characteristics of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Containing Carbon-Based Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript submitted by Lim et al mainly dealt with the electrical conductivity of concrete reinforced by carbon fibers. The authors presented some experimental data to demonstrate the influence of carbon fillers on the electricity and mechanical properties of concrete. However, the manuscript is not sufficient to be published at this moment. The reasons are as follows:
1. The title of this manuscript is not readable by “Electrical Conductivity of Ultra-High-Strength Concrete Containing Carbon Fiber according to the Measurement Methods”. One can hardly grasp the main objective of this work. The same concern goes for the main context.
2. Another concern is that the manuscript lacks in novelties. Only by presenting experimental date, this article should be regarded as an experimental report instead of a scientific article.
3. The authors should clarify the reason for studying the conductivity of carbon fibers filled concretes.
4. Fig. 9. What is the mechanism for the enhancement in tensile strength of concrete with time?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The author of the paper which title is “Electrical Conductivity of Ultra-High-Strength Concrete containing Carbon Fiber according to the Measurement Methods” evaluated the electrical and mechanical properties of concrete containing carbon fibers. The goal of the paper is unclear and paper need a major revision before considering for publication. Authors need to address the following comments and questions before publishing in applied science.
- In the abstract part, please bring some quantitative results in order to highlight the novelty and properties of the modified concrete material.
- The introduction part must improve in terms of highlighting the previous studies, and then novelty of the present work (please re-write the introduction part). In the previous studies, authors should bring some quantitative results to find out what was the research gap and what are the goals of present study.
- In the materials part, please bring the information of the vendors for the raw material. Also, what is OPC? S.Fume? Authors must explain in-details of all the components in table 1 and 2.
- Bringing the picture of the raw material (Figure 1) is not necessary in a scientific paper. Please delete them or transfer them into the supporting information.
- What is the meaning of expanded graphite in figure 2? How they synthesized? The quality of the image is very low. Is it SEM image? Please provide the scale bar of the image.
- Please delete Figure 4.
- Please explain the details of impedance behavior for impedance in part 2.3. If the authors use references for this part (for example figure 4), please cite them. Also Figure 4 should go to the supporting information part. What is the reason of bringing Nyquist curve and equivalent circuit? Please delete them.
- Please explain the effect of filler concentration on strength of the concrete in more detail. There are a lot of recently published papers in this field. Please compare the results with the literatures.
- In all the characterization, authors must bring the performance of the regular concrete without additive.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research paper is not high quality. Just the objectives are interesting while presentation and analysis are shallow. Here are some of my specific comments.
1. Abstract must be rewritten. There is not good flow based on the paper contents. A good abstract has the following structure: (a) A short background or introduction, (b) Objectives, (c) Research methods, (d) Important results, (e) Main conclusion and maybe (f) Scientific Impact to be included.
2. Briefly introduce the de-icing and self-sensing systems in the paper.
3. Using UHPC in this research must be justified. Otherwise, it seems that there is a conflict between this material and the research aim and this justification could be seen in different parts of papers. For example, in the first paragraph of the introduction, UHPC was specified to be a durable concrete while chloride penetration is introduced as a corrosion risk. It is well known that UHPC is a concrete with high chloride resistance then what is the concern about the chloride penetration because UHPC doesn’t have interconnected porosities? In line 40 also you mentioned the concern of penetrating chloride into concrete while if concrete is UHPC this concern is not valid. However, maybe chloride can be penetrated through structural/non-structural cracks. To avoid confusion of the readers please work on a good flow of presenting UHPC, durability, and concrete chloride penetration.
4. Line 56, give an example for the “performance” that was mentioned here. It is not really difficult to predict many performances with or without additives. This is the authors' claim and not based on the published data therefore you should be specific and justify.
5. Research method; using UHPC and different additives MUST be justified for the readers in scientific and practical point of views. Otherwise, whole research will be useless.
6. Section 2.2; explain about this technique of measurement (give an introduction first).
7. Are figures 5 and 6 developed by the authors? Otherwise, should provide citations in the figures’ captions.
8. Present mix proportions (kg/m3) of all concrete mixtures in a table.
9. Figure 7; why was 3 days selected? Why not for example 7 days? Basically, why need to investigate the performance at early ages in this study?
10. In sections 3.3 and 3.4 which are the main contribution of this research, very limited references were used. References are needed to support justifications and mechanisms. Results also could be compared with the other research works.
11. The paper title is not accurate. The last two words are not meaningful. Also paper is not just about Electrical Conductivity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is ready to publish in the present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors address most of the comments.
