Determining the Mineral Admixture and Fiber on Mechanics and Fracture Properties of Concrete under Sulfate Attack
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In line 40, literature is mentioned. What kind of research have you done before? It is necessary to express what is different from this study.
2. There are not enough references between lines 46 and 56. I think it should be mentioned why Fracture is important and where it is applied.
3. In lines 57~64, fly ash, slag, silica fume, and polyester fiber were used. It is necessary to mention the reason why these materials were selected. Required.
4. A literature survey on the existing research is required, and this research is different from the existing ones, and the research was conducted with what kind of material previously, and it is thought that the contents of this research should be mentioned in one section.
5. The part about materials seems meaningless because the table is written down once again.
6. Tables 1~4 express information that is not too necessary in a table, and it is difficult for the reader to understand, so it needs to be modified. There is no uniformity in the form and size of the table.
7. References are required on lines 83-85.
8. The experimental conditions are expressed in lines 93-96, but they need to be refined in a table.
9. Line 98 bibliography input required, information on testing machine is insufficient. A description of the entire system is required first.
10. In the 2.3.2 part, each number is indicated in the text, but it needs to be separately arranged in a table, and a dictionary definition is required for symbols, etc.
11. In Figure 1, it is difficult to understand the figure representation, and I think it should be a photograph or figure representation of how three-point bending is applied. Also, initial crack, etc. are not expressed.
12. Specification for BJR-1, YHD-30, YYJ-4/10, etc. is required.
13. The explanation of the experimental setting is difficult to understand, and I think it should be sufficiently expressed in photographs.
14. Figure 2, It is necessary to change to a picture with good resolution, and an expression of how each measuring device is installed and measured is required.
15. I can't understand the 136-137 sentence.
16. The interpretation of lines 146-150 seems to be wrong. It seems to be the maximum in the 4th cycle, but here the expressions are different, such as the maximum in the 6th cycle. Interpretation is required again.
17. Figure 3, The overall picture is not fancy, making it difficult to understand. Also, it is thought that number of times should be expressed in cycle.
18. The interpretation of the results in Section 3.2 is strange. The trend is different only for F15, but I think we need to list how many times the data has been performed and whether it is reliable.
19. The expression of the formula is strange throughout lines 168-171. You also need to reexpress Eq (3)-(4).
20. Lines 172-176 The whole line is confusing and needs to be redefined, and symbols need to be arranged separately. It is also different from the previous definition.
21. Same comment as line 20 of 182-187
22. 192 Figure 3 -> Figure 5
23. It is necessary to separately express which stage in the P-CMOD curve represents the entire line 197-218. Initial bend and crack stable growth are not well shown how to interpret the graph.
24. Lines 225-232 reference required
25. In the case of 3.3.3 and 3.3.4, when viewed as a graph, there is no overall trend, so it does not seem appropriate to simply interpret this result. The significance of this paper should be revealed through comparison with the results of other papers. It seems to be done, and there is an error such as a graph, so it seems that the overall correction is necessary.
26. In the case of fracture toughness and fracture energy, which are important factors suggested by the author, practical comparison is difficult because the graph is only for relative data. It seems that it is not correct to draw a conclusion as in conclusion (2), so it seems necessary to rewrite it.
27. References forms do not fit each other Redundant reference is written and needs to be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Review
Title : Determining the Mineral Admixture and Fiber on Mechanics and Fracture of Concrete under Sulfate Attack
Review:
Line 22-23: I would recommend to remove the last sentences as it is not necessary.
Line 79: The Codes in Table 5 stand for?
Line 94: Did the authors follow a standard procedure with reference to a reliable source for 0,2,4,6,8,10,12 dry-wet cycle?
Line 106: What is the standard being used for the fracture test of three-point bending beam.
Line 117: What is CMOD is?
Page 125: Figure 2 should be reproduced
Good to indicate displacement sensor and clamp extensiometer in this figure
Page 148: Author meant by 6th dry-wet cycle
Figure 3: Could authors confirm that all samples reached the maximum at 6th dry-wet cycle? Please cross-check with all the explanation.
What do the authors mean by the number of times?
Could the authors continuously link statements related to the results with the corresponding figures or tables (i.e. state the figure number in the discussion)? If not, the reader might be confused or lost midway trying to connect discussion with respective figures, tables etc (example line 154)
Line 157: Please check the sentence
Line 159: 20% fly ash meaning F20?
Good to have photos showing off the fail samples with fractures
Could the author suggest the application determining the mineral admixture and fibre on mechanics and Fracture Properties of concrete under sulphate attack is doable for large scale work?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a study of concrete with the incorporation of four admixtures and intends to discuss the effect of those admixtures on the mechanisms and fracture properties of concrete under sulfate exposure.
The theme is interesting and pertinent nowadays, as it is of the most importance to reduce the environmental footprint of construction materials. And produce materials capable to deal with erosion issues. However, some aspects need to be clarified, which are referred to in the following specific recommendations for the authors:
In table 5 is present the composition using silica Fume as SC10 (line 91), but in some figures and tables in the results is classified as SC30 and SC10, please uniformized this;
Line 171, Figure 3 - The authors present the results, however, it is also important to explain the reason for SC30 presents the best values and MC30 the lowest values. Moreover, the use of admixtures is important for a better performance of the concrete or not, discussion about the comparison with conventional concrete is missing.
Line 182-186: It is presented the results for splitting tensile strength, but it is not explained the reason for those results, why 10% of SF and 20-25% of FA has significantly higher values?
Line 304-314: Once again is missing the discussion of the results presented in this part. It is important to discuss the results, not just to present them.
The introduction, materials description, and conclusions are very clear of the work and the achievements obtained during this study.
Author Response
Please see the attached response file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The reviewed paper describes how to determine the mineral admixtures and fiber on mechanics and fracture properties of concrete under sulfate attack. The paper is well organised, all references are mentioned in the text and three main conclusions are given after carried out analyses.
The paper is interesting and worth for publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. Before publication, the reviewer suggests to make some corrections in the paper:
- there are different symbols used in the Tables and in the Figures: OC, F15, F20, F25, MC30, SC10, PC0.9, FC15, FC20, FC25. The symbols should be the same if they are connected with the same samples (codes). The symbols should be clear for the readers (compare Table 5, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, Table 6, Figure 7, Table 7, Figure 8)
- Figure 5c could have the same horizontal scale of CMOD (mm) as Figures 5a-5b. It will be better for comparison of the results
- Figure 7a and Figure 7b could have also the same vertical scale of the axis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, review comments are not reflected. It was also necessary to mention the differentiation of the paper, but there was no significant difference other than measuring fracture properties.
In terms of experimental design and results, only Simple interpretation of results are mentioned, and detailed reasons or effects on parameters are lacking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, review comments are not reflected. It was also necessary to mention the differentiation of the paper, but there was no significant difference other than measuring fracture properties.
In terms of experimental design and results, only Simple interpretation of results are mentioned, and detailed reasons or effects on parameters are lacking.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
