Temperature Distribution Curve Analysis on Concrete through LS-DYNA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article needs to be modified as follows：

1.The abstract should present experimental results and conclusions as clearly as possible, as the current manuscript explains too much background.

2.The conclusion should be concise, highlight the important conclusions of the article, and should be distinguished from the abstract.

3.The effect shown in Figure 1 is not good enough. Are the seven curves in a parallel relationship? If not, classification and drawing are required. In addition, some curves overlap. Please explain why.

4.Line 130, "2.3" should be written as "2.3."

5.The corresponding relationship between (b) and (a) in Figure 4 can best be intuitively reflected in the figure.

6.composite units, such as "(J/ms℃)", does the format meet the requirements of the journal? Is it necessary to add the middle point "·"? If not required, please ignore it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript fire-2774228 entitled Temperature Distribution Curve Analysis on Concrete through LS-DYNA. In this paper, author studies concrete temperature distribution under various fire conditions, which are commonly used as tunnel materials. The paper research topic is interesting, but authors should improve the paper as a academic journal articles. I give you comments for your work.

1. Introduction part is too wordy. There is no interesting points for this research. Author should include more previous literature reviews and highlight the necessary of this study.

2. In 61 lines, make a new paragraph. 

3. Can the eletric furnace simulate the real fire situation? Author(s) should show the validation of the eletric furnace to reproduce the fire conditions properly.

4. please, add the detail model descriptions. for THERMAL_ISOTROPIC model.

5. in 155 line, the explanation of experiment conditions is duplicated. You don't have to refer the experimental conditions again.

6. The validation for simulation is conducted using comparing only the temperature point between experiment and simulation results in several points. I don't think that the simulation results can be credential for various fire conditions. I suggest that the validation process should be added using other parameters.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is well written but it should improve as a academic paper. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1)     the lines in the figures were too small to distinguish. All figures should be updated.

2)     The English should be polished further, some word was very difficult to understand. Such as the word in the abstract：“It is necessary to understand that the temperature inside the tunnel concrete lining could rise during a fire accident to design proper materials for tunnel lining”

3)     The differences of temperature risings at varying depth of coatings should be quantitatively compared, other than in the figures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be througly polished further, some word was very difficult to understand. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept the revised manucript to be published in this journal

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No, I don't have any opinion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the manuscript had been improved and can be accepted for publicaiton