A Review on the Transport-Chemo-Mechanical Behavior in Concrete under External Sulfate Attack
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Consider comments in the entire text.
Dear authors. Some similarity can be found relating to texts which are already published. Non acceptable.
Because of that, I will make only general comments
Findings need to be clearly expressed in the abstract.
Captions, highlighted to be original, need to be perfectly self-explanatory, which is not the case.
“Figure 1. The sulfate environment distribution in People's Republic of China.”
Once again, Headings need to be perfectly self-explanatory, which is not, again, the case. Also consider that abbreviation should be avoided in these cases.
“2. Products of CSA”
Content duplication needs to be strongly avoided.
“3. Formation mechanism of sulfate products”
“Table 1. Formation mechanism of sulfate reaction products in concrete.”
Please do not use read text insulting in many countries.
The term failure would have to be clarified, since a reader looking at the hidden will not understand.
“4. Failure forms caused by CSA”
Please never start headings or captions with the term. “THE”.
“Table 2 The”
All known mathematical data that is acquisitions, etc, would have to be preceded by the necessary reference immediately before also. Also being mentioned in the text, no reference here...
“At present, the theory of crystallization pressure developed in recent years can rea- sonably explain the CSA-induced expansion and damage of concrete. As early as 1949, based on the thermodynamic theory, Correns deduced the calculation formula of salt crys- tallization pressure, expressed as Eq.(1).”
This is a new separate paragraph so the references need to be clarified again.
“Furthermore, the above researches pointed out th”
In the case of grouped figures, a subcaption must be presented by each letter after the main caption.
“Figure 2. The filling behavior of ettringite crystal in pore system of local concrete.”
Also here:
“Figure 1. The sulfate environment distribution in People's Republic of China.”
This is not a correct way to refer to any publication.
“is expressed as [56]”
as here and in may other cases:
“In references [63, 64], Gospodinov”
“and after reaction [74],”
Please revise the entire manuscript again at this respect because. Because it compromises everything being presented
All content in all cases need to be clear.
When opting to include equations in. Then all parameters need to be defined under notes.
“Table 3. The influence factors of sulfate ion transport in concrete.”
Once again, reference needs to be present before the equation:
“So, the free volume expansion of concrete caused by sulfate products, without considering the restraint effect of hole wall, be calculated as”.
The caption is not clear.
“Table 4. Coefficient of volume change caused by chemical reactions.”
Again, no reference...
“The expansion cracking of concrete is attributed to the crystallization pressure generated by the ettringite growth in the pores, and the equivalent expansive force Peff in concrete is calculated by crystallization pressure, as”
Well, I’m sure that this part of the text should not be here.
“6. Conclusions This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.”
Consider that the conclusions section needs to include brief contextualization and methodology. Main findings and practical implications. As in some cases, limitations and future prospects.
See that the listing style should be strongly avoided.
Used over and over and over again in specific regions.
“The main conclusions are as follows:”
Then no connection and no practical implications.
Please think that when aimed at an international publication references should also include more international authors.
So, please try to include more recent references
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but a couple of sentences on the details of the performed review must be added.
2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed review. Research questions, aims and objectives of this review must be clearly mentioned in introduction.
3- The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, authors must read and refer to the following papers: compare with 3D-printed concrete: (a) https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159782 (b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126616 and other research works.
4- There are sentences which are too long. For example, in abstract “Finally, a series of …”.
5- Authors must add a new section to discuss current challenges and future prospects.
6- It would be nice, if authors could present all figures in a high quality (e.g., quality of Fig. 1 is very low). In addition, images must be illustrated in a more scientific. Tables are too large, and etc.
7- What is the strategy for selecting the reviewed literature? What are the keywords for searching? Also, there are some sentences and figures which need an appropriate reference.
8- More figures from reviewed papers must be added to the manuscript.
9- Advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of different Chemo-mechanical model for concrete subjected to CSA must be summarized in a table.
10- Without a methodology section to clarify the review process, the structure of the paper is confusing.
11- In its language layer, the manuscript should be considered for English language editing. There are sentences which have to be rewritten.
12- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.
Answers given by the authors are not detailed…
The direct mention to references is still not correct. The way authors refer to references in many cases will need clarification
“. The basic equation [59] is expressed as”
Overall, I am satisfied with the changes made.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. In my opinion, the current version can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable suggestions of the reviewer !
