Finite Element Analysis of Continuously Reinforced Bonded Concrete Overlay Pavements Using the Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting topic. The research presented in the paper relies very poorly on experimental findings. Although the study of numerical nature is discussed in detail but without any theoretical basis. If numerical simulations are used, it is necessary to describe in detail the computational system used and, of course, the solution methodology employed in this system. Nevertheless, the manuscript is written professionally in the style of road engineering. A scientific research paper must not depend only on the viscosity parameter (even if its sensitivity is dominant). Roadways form a complex structural system where the interaction of the structural layers depending on their mechanical properties must be taken into account.  These phenomena are quite complex to model in FEM models. Here, sensitivity analyses are needed. Material nonlinearity taken from generalized material models is not the only parameter that should be presented in the paper. In addition, the interaction of the reinforcement elements with the concrete influences the crack initiation. Therefore, I recommend the authors to include all these phenomena at least in the conclusions and statements for practice. Overall, the paper is generalized in nature, but only presents results from Korea.

 

Besides the the professional part, I have a few formal remarks about the manuscript:

 

-the abstract does not have the structure of a scientific article

-the introduction does not correspond to the level of a scientific article, the state of the art is very weak, oriented only to the material and not to the pavements

-table 1 is unnecessary, the summary of parameters is enough to describe in the text

-Figure 7, incomprehensible parameters

-Figures 9, 10, 11 not significant

- the conclusion needs to be completely revised, in the context of modern excavation materials

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an interesting study and a good contribution to the area of the sustainable rehabilitation/management of deteriorated concrete pavements. In the study the occurrence, locations and movement of the reflection and transverse cracks in the continuously reinforced bonded concrete overlay were investigated through nonlinear finite element analysis. The crack widths predicted by two methods namely concrete damaged plasticity and the elastic models were compared and the obtained results were discussed. At this stage, the article needs few corrections to make it more interesting to the allied research community. Following are few observations which could be addressed while revising this article:

 

·         Abstract seems to look very generous. Abstract must contain the specific key results and must signify the main contribution of this paper.  It is expected to incorporate the corrections during the revision.

·         Section 1: In the introduction part, the authors have focused on the local problems of Korean region associated with the rehabilitation of pavements through the overlays, but it is expected to give the world-wide prospective and the studies through the literature support (in detail) which would add a great value to the consequence of the work. Specific gaps from the literatures, significance and objectives of the current work are to be presented at the end of the introduction section.

·         Section 2: Clearly specify the reasons and justifications for the adoption of the values in the current study from the literatures. Example: "dilation angle of 35° was 87 determined by comparing the range between 31° and 42°", why? . "biaxial to uniaxial compressive strength ratio (1.16) was determined based...." how? ."hardening parameter of 2/3 was 91 determined based on the studies of Lubliner et al......." why? and so on....  Also, the significance of all the parameters which are presented in Table 1 is to be presented.

·         Section 3: What does figure 3c indicates? will slab temperature varies till minus 60 degrees Celsius in the field?  Also indicate the significance of the same in the current research.

·         How the other environmental loads such as rainfall, snow fall, changes in weather conditions...etc is incorporated in the study? (Since, presently only temperature aspect has been considered). Also indicate the significance of drying shrinkage of the CRBCO layer in the present investigations.

·         Mention clearly the arrival of "-85.7°C" at the top surface of the CRBCO of 80 mm thickness? What is its significance?

·         Section 4 and 5: Major revision must be done in the results and discussions section. In the entire section, the discussions of the results obtained are missing. It is very essential to specify and mention the observation and provide the necessary comments/justification on the obtained results at the end of each gained result citing the previously published similar research outcomes. Hence, a meticulous revision is extremely needed under this section.

·         The authors failed to express the comments on the validation of the analysis. In details it is expected to explain the validation and practical signifance of the developed FEA results.

·         Conclusions: Before going to specific conclusions, it is better to present a paragraph which presents the brief insight of the work. Conclusions must be presented in bullet points. In addition to summarising key-outcomes, it is expected to provide the brief explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming. Thus, the full conclusion section must be briefed and re-written giving key outcomes and the main essence of the work with their relative contributions to the research community. Also, indicate the limitations, significance and future scope of the work after the conclusions.

·         Check the grammar and sentence errors in English language throughout the manuscript and rectify carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is corrected well.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.