Repair and Treatment of Alkali–Silica Reaction (ASR)-Affected Transportation Infrastructures: Review and Interview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and holds significant potential.

The authors' determination to consider many variables is commendable. This study's relevance to a crucial area is evident, and its findings could profoundly impact it, inspiring further research and development in the field.

 

Your use of up-to-date references. It not only adds credibility to your work but also shows your respect for the current state of research in the field. The simplicity and directness of the article's construction further enhance its readability, making it a strong point of this paper.

 

Your article's thoughtful inclusion of images and charts enhances the readability of the text and aids in comprehending complex concepts, making it a valuable contribution to the paper. Your efforts in this regard are appreciated and recognized.

 

The English language is acceptable. Easy to read and understand.

 

 

Although the following article has multiple pros, it could be published after major revisions Should be done.

 

All these efforts will improve clarity, scientific form, and consistency. The following remarks are presented below.

 

 

1. Line 8—It is strongly expected that you explain all shortcuts you use in the text, especially when using them for the first time. Please fix it.
2. Lines 19-23 – it is strongly recommended in the abstract to present 3 things that are lacking now. 1st - main problem, 2nd solution, 3rd – what was archived by this solution – key findings. The same construction is being pointed to normal articles and also to review one.
3. Lines 46-51 list ASR causes instead of combining them in one sentence. This will be more visible for readers.
4. Lines 62-70 are okay—you point out the problem and what you will do to solve it, but lines 71-87 are generally the same thing. Make it more complex—merge the end of the introduction with it + remove the header purpose and scope. You extend your article unnecessarily.
5. Lines 109-118—Providing this information is not required. It is obvious that when writing a literature review, you should try to find some information in some database. Listing them is not necessary.
6. Line 119 – what is DOT? Explain it before use. shortcut
7. Line 149 – what does the grey value color mean in the figure legend? Add it.
8. All tables – A1-A9 – change font size (to 7-8 – make it smaller) + fix table match (fit) to the window, because all information’s “tubby” – hard to read and follow information from context.
9. line 182 - 257 - well, I was trying to wonder if header 4.2, lessons learned from the literature review, is surely necessary here in the review article. it is not typical. Mostly done you performed in the previous section where all things were tabularized. I think that the information you should emphasize shortly here (1 short sentence) and all other information should be placed in the conclusion part.
10. Line 538—One extra sentence should be added here as an introduction for the conclusion. Placing the list is okay, but the conclusion point is strongly expected not to start from the list.

 

 

The article seems more like a report or instruction than a typical review article. It is detailed, and it contains more than expected. It is a pros and cons simultaneously of this occurring.

 

I feel that you want to post too much about this topic. The article is broad, and sometimes, the reader will take “caugh” (be unfocused—focus and attention will be lost). As my advice, this article should be divided into two separate articles. The first one will be focused on header 4.1, and the second one will describe point 4.3.

 

Generally - good work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject covered in the submitted manuscript lies within the journal's scope.

The topic of the work is relevant to the scientific and technical community, and the manuscript represents a useful contribution to the field.

However, some changes should be performed to the manuscript, namely:

1. In the abstract, please note that for some existing structures or structural elements, the alkali-silica reaction may be slowed down, depending on the type and dimension of the affected element and service conditions.
2. In the introduction, please revise the described ASR mechanism accounting for the latest developments in the field.
3. Please present values also using the metric system (International System of Units).
4. In section 3, Figure 1, please consider rephrasing the caption to “Interviewed State DOTs; states with reported and confirmed ASR issues are shown in red, and states without reported ASR issues are shown in green. (…)”, if that is the case.
5. In section 4, please revise Tables 1 to 7 so that they are not split between pages.
6. In section 4.2, please indicate which were the mentioned 15 structures, as if they are presented in Tables 1 to 7.
7. In section 4.2, it would be interesting to perform an analysis considering the type of aggregate and concrete alkali content.
8. In section 4.3, please disclose the petrographic characteristics of the aggregates, whenever that information is available.
9. In section 4.3, please avoid unclear and general terms, e.g. “SCMs: Fly ash is primarily used”, “Satisfied with their outcomes”. The information shall be more specific in order to be usable.
10. In section 4.3, please use aggregate reactivity classification as per ASTM C1778.
11. In section 4.3, please define “ASR issues” categorization.
12. In section 4.3, Please comment on the use of ASTM C1778 methodologies and other applicable standards/documentation/regulations by the several DOTs. Please also inform if the different States have their own regulations, if they have to comply with existing ASTM standards, etc.
13. In section 4.3, please inform if the presented ASR repair strategies are those commonly used or if they are recommended by the DOT, and if there are applicable regulations/codes.
14. Please revise the captions of the tables to make them more informative. Figure captions should be standalone, i.e., descriptive enough to be understood without having to refer to the main text.
15. Please revise the conclusions, providing adequate and detailed support to the recommendations made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript reviews strategies for the repair and treatment of transportation infrastructures affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR). While the majority of the literature focuses on the identification and mitigation of ASR damage, it is also critical to develop effective, economical, and standardized approaches for repairing ASR-affected structures and reducing associated risks. The following comments aim to provide constructive feedback to enhance the quality and scientific contribution of the manuscript:

1. Laboratory vs. Field Applications:
The authors state that "successful results from laboratory tests or exposure site evaluations do not guarantee success in the field" (Lines 219–220). While this observation highlights the challenges of translating laboratory findings to real-world applications, it may inadvertently undermine the value of laboratory-scale research. To provide a more balanced perspective, the review should explicitly address the existing gap between laboratory studies and field practices. Additionally, it would be beneficial to offer recommendations on how future scientific research can better bridge this gap, ensuring that laboratory efforts remain relevant and impactful for practical repair strategies.

2. Scientific Contribution and Mechanistic Insights:
The current manuscript primarily summarizes information from the literature without delving into the underlying mechanisms or providing critical synthesis. As a result, the scientific contribution is limited, and the manuscript reads more like a technical report than a scholarly review. To strengthen its academic value, the authors should aim to analyze and deduce the reasons why certain repair methodologies succeed in specific structures but fail in others. This analysis should span from the material level (e.g., chemical and mechanical properties) to the structural level (e.g., load-bearing capacity and environmental conditions), offering deeper insights into the variability of repair outcomes.

3. Numerical Modeling of ASR Damage:
Numerical modeling is a powerful tool for analyzing and predicting the effectiveness of repair strategies for ASR-affected structures. It is recommended that the authors include a dedicated subsection summarizing the current state of numerical modeling in the context of ASR damage. This addition would not only enhance the comprehensiveness of the review but also provide readers with a forward-looking perspective on how computational approaches can complement experimental and field studies.

4. Specific Details:
(1) Logical Consistency (Lines 59–61): The statement, "Therefore, understanding the diverse approaches and technologies used internationally becomes essential to develop effective repair and treatment methodologies for different parts of the structure," lacks logical clarity. It is unclear why understanding international approaches alone would directly lead to the development of effective repair methodologies. The authors should clarify the reasoning behind this claim or rephrase it to better align with the manuscript's objectives.
(2) Figure 1 Clarification: In Figure 1, the legend indicates that red represents states with ASR issues and green represents states without notable ASR issues. However, the gray regions in the figure are not explained. The authors should provide a clear description of what the gray regions signify to avoid confusion and ensure the figure is fully interpretable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of repair and treatment methods for alkali–silica reaction (ASR)-affected transportation infrastructure, combining systematic literature analysis with survey results from U.S. state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). The topic is timely and important, especially given the aging concrete infrastructure in many countries and the pressing need for cost-effective maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. However, the following points could be improved to enhance the quality of this review.

(1) The survey of 29 DOTs is particularly valuable and adds an empirical grounding to the study. But it will be better to include a subsection summarizing the main contrasts between lab-validated techniques and field performance as reported by DOTs. This will highlight the “lab–field gap,” a critical issue for infrastructure durability studies.

(2) Tables are rich but rare figures, and so many tables could be more readable, what about adding a summary figure or so.

(3) The paper touches upon best practices, a dedicated final section summarizing “key recommendations” or “research gaps” is expected.

Author Response

Response Letter

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our work. We fully recognize that the review process is a voluntary effort, and we deeply appreciate the constructive feedback provided to help enhance the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed the comments from all reviewers, making appropriate revisions where necessary. In cases where changes were made, we have incorporated them in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions. Additionally, we have provided detailed responses where clarification was needed. Your valuable input has greatly contributed to improving the manuscript, and we are grateful for your support throughout this process.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

This manuscript presents a comprehensive review of repair and treatment methods for alkali–silica reaction (ASR)-affected transportation infrastructure, combining systematic literature analysis with survey results from U.S. state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). The topic is timely and important, especially given the aging concrete infrastructure in many countries and the pressing need for cost-effective maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. However, the following points could be improved to enhance the quality of this review.

• The survey of 29 DOTs is particularly valuable and adds an empirical grounding to the study. But it will be better to include a subsection summarizing the main contrasts between lab-validated techniques and field performance as reported by DOTs. This will highlight the “lab–field gap,” a critical issue for infrastructure durability studies.

Thanks for your valuable comment. We added a new section called “4. Translating Laboratory Findings to Field Applications in ASR Mitigation” between lines 513 to 535 in the revise document.

• Tables are rich but rare figures, and so many tables could be more readable, what about adding a summary figure or so.

Thank you for your comment. While we recognize that the manuscript is more table-heavy than figure-focused, we have added a new figure (Figure 2) that summarizes the mitigation strategies adopted by different states based on limiting alkali loading or alkali content in cement versus having no such limitations. This was the only aspect of the data that could be meaningfully represented in a visual format.

• The paper touches upon best practices, a dedicated final section summarizing “key recommendations” or “research gaps” is expected.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree with your suggestion and have added a new section titled “6. Recommendations,” which can be found on lines 568 to 587.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All remarks were considered. The article could be published.

Author Response

The authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our work.