Intelligent Automated Monitoring and Curing System for Cracks in Concrete Elements Using Integrated Sensors and Embedded Controllers
, Guido Elar Ordoñez Carpio 2, Wilmer Moisés Zelada Zamora 2, Marco Antonio Aguirre Camacho 1, Wilmer Rojas Pintado 1, Emerson Julio Cuadros Rojas 3, Hipatia Merlita Mundaca Ramos 4 and Nilthon Arce Fernández 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article relates the development of the automated monitoring system for concrete curing and agricultural irrigation. The manuscript is too long and should be shortened by rewriting/reorganizing some sections and remove some unnecessary contents. Some comments shown following for authors’ consideration.
- Line 58: Double check the reference numbers cited.
- Introduction section is too long (3270 words). Not necessary to review concrete curing with such detailed information as your aim it to develop a system to help the curing. It is suggested to briefly introduce traditional curing approaches, then focus on the review of new technologies for monitoring and curing in compliance with your title.
- Line 334: the compressive strength unit “kg/cm2” is not commonly used. Needs to change.
- Line 384: which technical standard used?
- Sections 3.1 and 3.2: you gave information about the environment of tests, test specimens etc. However, you did not tell what type of raw materials you used for concrete, such as types, size, initial moisture and water absorption etc. of the raw materials. These parameters might affect the concrete behaviours, such as moisture evaporation, crack and strength development of concrete etc. Your 28-day strength is about 19MPa, obviously, this is not a good concrete for structural members, such as for slab and column etc. Another issue is the dimensions of your slab and column, dimensions different, the moisture evaporation and crack development might be different.
- Lines 630-639: the change of internal temperature and humidity actually related slab thickness and column dimensions and concrete type etc, this should be considered and clarified.
- Line 626: it appears that the sentence has information missing.
- Lines 647: “Fig 16” should be “Fig 18”?
- Lines 647-664: as well, the change of internal temperature and humidity related slab thickness and column dimensions and concrete type etc, this should be clarified.
- Line 674, this should be not “table 1”. You have the “table 1” shown in line 504.
- Lines 715, 725, the numbers of tables should be revised.
- Section 3.7: the automated irrigation system included here may be not necessary. Although the auto instrument system developed may be used for irrigation.
- Section 4: this does not look like a discussion section, but a conclusion section. It sis suggested to rewrite to include critical assessment of your methodology, finding etc.
- Section 5: conclusions, this section is too long. It is suggested to reorganize/rewrite the Section 4 and Section 5 and reduce repeating. Also, conclusion may include future research/improvement consideration etc.
May be improved.
Author Response
|
Comment 1: Line 58: Please double-check the reference numbers cited. Thank you for your comment. Response 1: Checked and modified in lines 56 Comment 2: The introduction section is too long (3,270 words). It is not necessary to review concrete curing in such detail, as the objective is to develop a system that facilitates curing. It is suggested to briefly present traditional curing approaches and then focus on reviewing new technologies for monitoring and curing, in accordance with the title. Thank you for your comment. Response 2: The introduction was revised and improved according to the variables and title. Comment 3: Line 334: The unit of compressive strength “kg/cm²” is not commonly used. It should be modified. Thank you for your comment. Response 3: The units were modified according to SI. In lines 221. Comment 4: Line 384: What technical standard was used? Thank you for commenting. Response 4: The technical standards used have been specified in lines 274. Comment 5: Sections 3.1 and 3.2: provided information on the test environment, test samples, etc. However, they did not specify the type of raw material used for the concrete, such as type, size, initial moisture content, and water absorption. These parameters could affect the behavior of the concrete, such as moisture evaporation, crack development, and strength, etc. Its strength at 28 days is approximately 19 MPa; obviously, this concrete is not suitable for structural elements, such as slabs and columns. Another problem is the dimensions of the slab and column, since, being different, moisture evaporation and crack development could be different. Thank you for your comment. Answer 5: In section 3.1, the types of materials used are specified in lines 295, and the initial relative humidity is detailed in lines 382. The compressive strength is specified in lines 291 to 297, and the dimensions of the model are structurally non-critical, as pointed out in lines 243. Comment 6: Lines 630-639: the change in internal temperature and humidity is actually related to the thickness of the slab, the dimensions of the column, and the type of concrete, etc. This should be considered and clarified. Thank you for your comment. Response 6: This has been revised, improved, and clarified in section 3.4. Comment 7: Line 626: It seems that information is missing from the sentence. Thank you for your comment. Response 7: The sentence on this line has been modified. Comment 8: Line 647: Should “Fig 16” be “Fig 18”? Thank you for your comment. Response 8: The numbering of the figures has been completely modified. Comment 9: Lines 647-664: In addition, the change in internal temperature and humidity related to slab thickness, column dimensions, and concrete type, etc., should be clarified. Thank you for your comment. Response 9: This has been revised, improved, and clarified in section 3.4. Comment 10: Line 674: It should not be “Table 1.” “Table 1” is shown in line 504. Thank you for your comment. Response 10: The numbering of the tables has been completely changed. Comment 11: Lines 715, 725: The table numbers should be revised. Thank you for your comment. Response 11: The numbering has been modified. Comment 12: Section 3.7: The automated irrigation system included here may not be necessary. However, the automatic instrumentation system developed could be used for irrigation. Thank you for your comment. Response 12: Section 3.6 of the previous section 3.7 has been revised and improved. Comment 13: Section 4: This does not seem like a discussion section, but rather a conclusions section. It is suggested that it be rewritten to include a critical evaluation of the methodology, findings, etc. Thank you for your comment. Response 13: Section 4 on discussions has been revised and improved. Comment 14: Section 5: Conclusions. This section is too long. We suggest reorganizing/rewriting sections 4 and 5 and reducing repetitions. In addition, the conclusion may include considerations for future research and improvements, etc. Thank you for your comment. Response 14: Section 5 on conclusions has been revised and improved. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOne of the main disadvantages of this manuscript is its excessive length. The Introduction and Conclusion should be significantly condensed to within 150 lines and 300 words. The Methods and results sections contain lots of repetition and could be streamlined.
without a control specimen, it is unclear how the authors justify the statement: “These results reflect a significant progression in the strength gain of the concrete, validating the quality of the mix and the performance of the applied curing.”
The claim that the sensors can “predict” concrete behavior under extreme environmental conditions lacks sufficient explanation. The reviewer questions whether such statements In the Results section may have been generated using an AI tool.
Without comparing their embedded sensors with other types of embedded sensors placed at the same positions, How does the author verify or validate the accuracy of the sensors?
The design of electronic system should be placed prior to the Results.
Other comments:
Reference error in Line 53
The formatting of units in Line 276, 282, etc.
Some of the sentence breaks are incorrect, especially in Lines 300-306.
Please use SI units, like the force in line 286. What is the unit for fc?
The equation of Clausius Clapeyron's Law should have a reference.
Author Response
|
Comment 1: One of the main drawbacks of this manuscript is its excessive length. The Introduction and Conclusion should be condensed considerably, to 150 lines and 300 words. Thank you for your comment. Response 1: The introduction and conclusions have been revised and improved as recommended. Comment 2: The Methods and Results sections contain a lot of repetition and could be simplified. Thank you for your comment. Response 2: The Methods and Results section has been completely revised and improved. Comment 3: Without a control sample, it is unclear how the authors justify the statement: “These results reflect a significant progression in the strength gain of the concrete, which validates the quality of the mix and the performance of the curing applied.” Thank you for your comment. Response 3: The statement of this progression is based on sections 3.1 and 3.4. Comment 4: The claim that sensors can “predict” concrete behavior in extreme environmental conditions lacks sufficient explanation. The reviewer questions whether such claims in the Results section could have been generated by an AI tool. Thank you for your comment. Response 4: The term “predict” specific behavior has been modified because the sensor as a device sends information, and the system acts on the programmed thresholds. The details are specified in the Method section and 3.2 of the Results. The AI tool was used for the systematic search for background information and theories. Comment 5: Without comparing your integrated sensors with other types of integrated sensors placed in the same positions, how does the author verify or validate the accuracy of the sensors? The accuracy of the integrated sensors has been validated through a calibration process based on international standards such as. Thank you for your comment. Response 5: The accuracy of the integrated sensors was validated through a calibration process based on international standards such as ISO 5725 and ASTM C39, as specified in the method section (points 5 and 6). In addition, the comparison was made with the Thermo-Hygrometer. Comment 6: The design of the electronic system should precede the results. Thank you for your comment. Response 6: The design of the electronic circuits was moved from the results section to the method section. Other comments: Comment 7: Reference error in line 53. Thank you for your comment. Response 7: The reference was modified. Comment 8: The format of the units in lines 276, 282, etc. Thank you for your comment. Response 8: Lines 175 to 190 have been revised, improved, and clarified. Comment 9: Some of the sentence divisions are incorrect, especially in lines 300 to 306. Thank you for your comment. Response 9: The methods section has been revised, improved, and clarified. Comment 10: Use SI units, such as force in line 286. What is the unit for fc? Thank you for commenting. Response 10: Revised and improved according to SI. In lines 220. Comment 11: The Clausius Clapeyron Law equation should have a reference. Thank you for commenting. Response 11: Revised and referenced in lines 194. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents timely study on the development of an intelligent automated system for monitoring and curing cracks in concrete using integrated sensors and embedded controllers. The topic is relevant to the current research trends in smart construction materials and infrastructure maintenance. The methodology is technically sound, and the article is generally well written and organized. However, before acceptance, the manuscript requires a minor revision to improve clarity and scientific rigor, particularly in the conclusion section.
- Page 2, Line 83: It is recommended to refer the following relevant and recent article, which discusses the chemical interaction between concrete. This could strengthen the background and literature context: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01813-x
- The current conclusion is too general and reads more like a summary. It should emphasize key scientific findings, such as the accuracy of the sensor system, response time, efficiency of crack healing, or any quantitative metrics that support the novelty and effectiveness of the system. The conclusion should be shorter and more focused, highlighting the innovation, main results, and potential applications.
Author Response
|
Comment 1: Page 2, Line 83: We recommend consulting the following relevant and recent article, which analyzes the chemical interaction between concrete. This could reinforce the information and bibliographic context: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01813-x. Thank you for your comment. Response 1: The article indicated has been reviewed in the summary section and is considered in the discussion section. Comment 2: The current conclusion is too general and reads more like a summary. It should emphasize key scientific findings, such as the accuracy of the sensor system, response time, crack repair efficiency, or any quantitative metrics that support the novelty and effectiveness of the system. The conclusion should be shorter and more concise, highlighting the innovation, main results, and potential applications. Thank you for your comment. Response 2: The conclusions section has been completely revised and improved as recommended. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy comments have been well considered and addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments.
