Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Quality Detection of Grouting in Pre-Stressed Pipelines Based on Transmission Wave Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The publication is not very extensive, it focuses on one aspect of the subject. There is a lack of broader references to the methods and practice of determining the quality of injection of prestressed pipelines in concrete beams. There is no comparison with the results of tests using other methods. There is some dissatisfaction with the lack of discussion indicating the advantage of the discussed method over other methods of similar research.

Personally, I would expect such a comparison, first from the theoretical side, and in the discussion - referring to the results of similar studies.

However, the description of the experience itself is presented clearly and in sufficient detail. In this respect, the work could be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled: “Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Quality Detecting for Grouting in Pre-stressed Pipelines Based on Transmission Wave Method” considers imply that the transmitted wave method based on hammer signal can be used to detect the quality of grouting in pre-stressed pipeline. The experiment results are used to verify the numerical simulation (which was simulated by ABAQUS finite element software) by AGI-BWG instrument system developed to detect the quality of grouting. The presented experiments and analyses are interesting and manuscript can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417) in Special Issue Advances in Civil Structural Damage Detection and Health Monitoring after including some comments that could improve the quality of the article:

Major comments:

1. Line 169 no information on the reinforcement and steel used and no information on the concrete mix used. Does the concrete used in the test match the properties of those modeled in the model? The photos show the entire process of creating a 10 m beam, but there is no information on the properties of the materials used.

2. The markings N1, N2, N3 and N4 in Fig. 14 are not legible.

3. Line 207 There is no information about the tool used to induce extortion. The process of testing a 10 m beam itself is rather sparsely described.

4. Line 223 The graphs presented in Fig. 19 to Fig. 24 are difficult to read and seem useless in the process of interpreting the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors would like a manuscript on the possible application of the transmission wave method to evaluate the grout quality in prestressed pipes. They offer the results of the comparison between an experimental test and a numerical model. The text is very concise, and the sections of the article maintain a tone more akin to a report than a scientific article.

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A review of the manuscript is required.

 ·         The introduction should be improved by describing some other examples of the use of the "Trasmission Wave Method" and the related results. The references are limited, and there is no mention of the Acoustic Emission technique;

·         Line 52. The acronym SIBIE is not defined;

·         In section 1, the description of the Trasmission Wave Method is very poor and should be improved;

·         In section 2, the geometric model's height and width, respectively 1,00 m and 0,50 m, are different from the dimensions of the real sample shown in Figure 15. Figures 2, 3 and 4 could be implemented with further details, such as the numbering of cables. The position and the shape of the cables shown in Figure 3 seem different to the real sample.

·         Figure 16 has to be rearranged in favour of better readability;

·         In section 3.3, the instrumentation presented is described too briefly. The nature of the signal and how the instrument is used are not clearly illustrated;

·         Figures from 19 to 24 should be enlarged and more detailed;

·         Line 257. Explain "reasonable range". Errors vary between 0.4 to 2.81;

·         The conclusion section should be improved.

The text contains different fonts, spacing and styles, standardize.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper titled “Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Quality Detecting for Grouting in Pre-stressed Pipelines Based on Transmission Wave Method” is a great paper to be published in the Applied Sciences journal, however, many changes are required to be done before it is published.

Abstract

This section is required to be done properly with detail and include results from the study.

Keywords

Full-scale test what is the zero? Please remove it

Introduction

This section is required to have more details and earlier studies. Authors should provide great references related to the study, there are many such as

" Application of Nondestructive Testing Technology in Quality Evaluation of Plain Concrete and RC Structures in Bridge Engineering: A Review", and " Modified Artificial neural networks and support vector regression to predict lateral pressure exerted by fresh concrete on formwork".

There are many more that should be mentioned in detail and tell why this method of application has been used.

What is 1 transmission wave method authors should write a title on the top of that? Such as Materials and methods

The organization of the entire is not quite good, the authors should be revised properly in detail.

For the material's properties and parameters, authors should use the reference "Experimental and numerical analysis of 3D printed cement mortar specimens using inkjet 3DP"

The authors should discuss the details of the HZ compared to the wave velocity and amplitude, and how can these be used for the velocity and measuring the acceleration.

Figures 19 to Figure 25 most of them are in Chinese, please change it to English, because this journal only publishes in English.

The conclusion is too short and requires to be revised and include all outcomes only.

References should include all proposed by the reviewer and authors should read more on these topics on Google Scholar.

It requires comprehensive proofreading for the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The suggestions contained in the first review report are adequately addressed in the text; nevertheless, some minor suggestions still have to be received aimed at better readability:

•          Fig. 1 in the caption, the word diagram is incorrect since the figure is a picture and not a diagram

•          Although Figs. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 represent schemes and pictures of the single beam, whereas the captions also mention the slab. Modify.

•          Fig. 7 seems to contain a rectangular callout wrongly. Verify.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Now, it is in good format.

Only minor grammatical revision is required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx