An Evidence-Based Framework for the Sustainable Rehabilitation of Corrosion-Damaged Historic Marine Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a case study of marine structure repair, but in its current form resembles a technical report rather than a research paper. The main criticism is the dissonance between the promised "data-driven approach" and the standard engineering methodology, as well as the lack of validation results.  

1. The title phrase "Data-Driven Framework" and references to AI in the introduction are not reflected in the applied methodology based on conventional diagnostics, and the literature review omits the key standard ISO 12696.
2. The methodology described in Section 2.1 presents a standard repair process compliant with EN 1504, but lacks precise technical parameters of the materials used, including shrinkage and Young's modulus for micro-concrete.
3. The Results and Discussion section contains a critical gap, as the Authors cite specific repair effectiveness values in the conclusions, while the article content (Sections 2.4.6, 3) presents no post-repair measurements.
4. The terminology in Table 2, including the term "Intermediate unknown", is unprofessional and inconsistent with ASTM C876 standard requirements, which undermines the credibility of the presented diagnostic data.
5. The use of only half-cell potential and concrete resistivity methods in diagnostic testing is insufficient, as these methods are imprecise and only indicate the probability of corrosion. A proper research procedure should include polarization methods to assess the corrosion rate of reinforcement, performed for example on cores extracted from the structure.
6. The graphic documentation requires improvement, as the included photographs (Figures 2-4) are of low quality and lack scale, which prevents reliable assessment of the actual extent of structural damage.
7. The cost analysis presented in Section 2.4.5 is too superficial, as providing only the investment amount without a full life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) has minimal scientific value in the context of sustainable development.
8. I recommend a Major Revisions decision, as the work requires mandatory supplementation with validation test results confirming the effectiveness of the repairs performed.

Author Response

Please have a look at the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contains a general description of the methodology for assessing structural damage and selecting repair techniques. This makes it impossible to compare the proposed work plan with other well-known methods and studies by other authors. The description of the methods of carrying out repair and restoration work provides general information that does not give a clear idea of the materials and technologies used. The choice of protection methods and materials used is not justified.

The manuscript needs to be finalized with a detailed description of the scheme or sequence of actions in the Data-Driven Framework. The presented material is written in a general way and does not contain a clear Data-Driven Framework.

Some critical comments on the text of the article that require changes and additions:

- The damages listed in section 2.2.1 (type, depth) should be presented in the form of a table for each of the structural elements of a historic marine reinforced concrete structure, indicating the conditions of exposure (humidification-wetting cycles, temperature, constant immersion in seawater, etc.). Similar to what is done in Table 2.

- It is necessary to explain from which parts of the structure the samples listed in Table 4 were taken and to what effects they were subjected. The choice must be justified. The same is true for the samples listed in Table 5.

- Section 2.2.4 is superfluous because it contains well-known information about the development of corrosion in reinforced concrete, rather than a description of the methodology for analyzing the corrosion mechanism.

- In section 2.3.1, it is necessary to provide a mounting scheme for zinc electrodes, to justify the choice of their shape, size, quantity and mounting points.

- In section 2.3.2, it is necessary to explain how the coating was applied, how thick it is, and justify the choice, for example, by existing corrosion resistance tests.

- In section 2.3.2. (actually 2.3.3) Structural Strengthening Design, you need to specify the composition of the micro-concrete and characterize the reinforcements that are used for repairs. It is necessary to provide a clear technology of restoration work, to show the places where they are carried out on structural elements.

- Line 309: «…or treated using anti-corrosion coating…» - what kind of coating?

- In section 2.4.2, it is necessary to explain which concrete composition was used to restore the structure, which inhibitors and zinc-enriched compounds were used to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement. It is necessary to describe the technology of processing materials. For example, what is meant by "allowed adequate curing time" in line 330? Everything requires a more detailed description.

- In section 2.4.3, it is necessary to clearly list which methods and techniques were used to monitor quality, for which structural elements and under what conditions, and for which factors and indicators the control was carried out.

- In clause 2.4.5, it is necessary to list the cost of certain types of treatment: restoration of the concrete layer, protective coatings of reinforcement and concrete, corrosion inhibitors of reinforcement, installation of zinc protectors, etc.

- In section 2.4.6, quantitative indicators of the factors should be listed: reduction in corrosion rate, improvement in concrete cover protection, restoration of structural capacity, and extension of service life. As presented, there is no data confirming the effectiveness of the repairs performed.

- Conclusions 3, 4 and 5 are not supported by the data.

- Conclusions 6 and 7 require a clear description of the techniques in the form of a scheme or sequence of actions in the text of the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Please have a look at the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the additions and corrections made by the authors.
In its current form, the manuscript is suitable for publication in the CMD journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript and provided the necessary explanations.