Crack Shape Coefficient: Comparison between Different DFOS Tools Embedded for Crack Monitoring in Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The impression is like a degree thesis, the interpretation can be greatly summarized in a shorter length—too many 'general known pieces of knowledge as a Journal paper.
The main result is monolithic cable performance in a beam bending test. The performance is described, but that did not lead to a clear conclusion or model of the application. The contents to me lack the following report:
- The application needs a strain range of fewer than 100 microstrains, as Figure 31 shows. But the lab test is in the range above 1000 microstrain. i.e. The analysis is in the range not consist of field requests.
- The performance of IU is quite different with a different manufacturers. You can not just say it is a Rayleigh principle.
- the compressive deformation of the beam test is not reported, which is important for PC concrete.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for all the comments and suggestions. In the attached PDF file you will find our answers and detailed explanations (marked in blue). We also provided corrections and improvements in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript evaluates the “Crack shape coefficient: comparison between different DFOS tools embedded for crack monitoring in concrete”. The manuscript is elaborately described and contextualized with the help of previous and present theoretical background. However it is too lengthy. All the references cited are relevant to this area of research. The methods/analytical study are clearly stated. The result and discussion section are clearly presented. However, it is too lengthy. The manuscript needs Major revision and require the following modifications before the acceptance.
1. Abstract: Mention the need for this research. Present research recommendation of your work.
2. Key words: use either distributed fibre optic sensing or DFOS, Remove ‘widths; detection; concrete’
3. Introduction should not have sub headings. Also, it is too lengthy. Mention the novelty of your work.
4. Provide the result and discussion heading instead of Findings. Many of your discussion is coming under the 3. Laboratory testing heading. Move it to Result and discussion section.
5. Conclusion is too lengthy.
6. Present your research recommendations at the end of conclusion part.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for all the comments and suggestions. In the attached PDF file you will find our answers and detailed explanations (marked in blue). We also provided corrections and improvements in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Not special at the tools and condition he can achieved.
Reviewer 2 Report
All the comments has been addressed well
