The Influence of the Rebound Hammer Test Location on the Estimation of Compressive Strength of a Historical Solid Clay Brick
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This topic of the study is both interesting and important. This submission is valuable addition to the topic.
Comments for improving the manuscript:
The Introduction is rather short. More literature sources are needed and description of the peciuliarities of rebound hammer as well as for destructive compressive test of specimens needs more attention.
In usual case, only Eight solid clay bricks from only one building is too small sample size for a study reported in a journal.
However, this study has an added value of setting down empirical equation for calculation of brick compressive strength and estimation of errors, therfore it is recommended for acceptance.
[] Square brackets of references are often missing. Sometimes the link to reference is not working.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the comments and suggestions, we have addressed them.
Please find our answers attached!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has low scientific interest.
It needs a lot of structural changes before it can be published.
Μore experiments should be done, and extra characterization techniques should be applied.
First of all, the authors should introduce the composition of the material they want to analyze, which they have not done.
Secondly, since they tell us the composition of the material before examination, the microstructure of the material should be characterized, possibly by means of an electron microscope.
After the mechanical tests are done (which they have done).
Regarding the text:
They do not mention affiliation.
The introduction has several omissions, and does not mention the state of the art of this work.
The methodology needs further analysis.
The results need more discussion.
Finally, the conclusion is almost non-existent.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the comments and suggestions, we have addressed them.
Please find our answers attached!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
As far as I know, very few rebound hammer test studies have been published on historic bricks (or building stones). It would therefore be good to have this paper in the scientific archive, although it will be difficult to make a comparison with modern bricks made in the same (or similar) manner, both because the manufacturing techniques may have changed in 200 years and also the mechanical properties of the bricks are likely to have changed since they were made due to physical and chemical aging.
Line 22. I am surprised that the authors describe the rebound hammer test as ‘non-destructive’, especially in the light of results shown in Figure 5.
Line 30. If ‘10’ is a reference, it should appear as [10]
Line 33. If ‘12’ is a reference, it should appear as [12]
Line 47. If ‘11’ is a reference, it should appear as [11]
Line 90. If ‘15’ is a reference, it should appear as [15]
Tables 4, 5 & 6. Strength results in these tables are quoted to four significant figures. Does the measurement accuracy justify this level of precision? Figures 7, 8 & 9 would suggest not.
Line 125. If ‘15’ is a reference, it should appear as [15]
Line 184. Journal name in reference 5 is ‘Alexandria Engineering Journal’
Author Response
Dear Reviewer!
Thank you for the comments and suggestions, we have addressed them.
Please find our answers attached!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made several changes, it can be accepted, but at the same time a stoichiometry of the sample they examined should be included
Author Response
Thank you for the comment, we have added the stoichiometry results.
