A Comparative Study on Water and Gas Permeability of Pervious Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigated the gas and water permeability of pervious concretes and explored the relationship between permeability and pressure. This study is the first to investigate the gas permeability of pervious concrete, but there are still some issues to be resolved.

1.      In the Introduction, the authors need to review articles closely related to the research topic, as well as relevant conclusions and research gaps. And most of the references cited are published in the early years, it is better to cite the literature within the last five years.

2.      Please list the mix proportions of pervious concrete in a table.

3.      The authors should provide explanations of the parameters and unit in each equation.

4.      Note the spaces between words, e.g. lines 149, 173, 196, 198, et.al.

5.      Line 180, note that the sentence is incomplete.

6.      Fig. 6, the title of the last figure is wrong.

7.   Is the time interval of the water and gas permeability consistent?

8.   In Table 1, the units of porosity are listed in the first row and can be omitted from the table.

9.   Since the authors developed a new method for testing permeability, whether this is the reason why water permeability is higher than gas permeability?

10.  There are some writing problems in the paper, please correct them carefully

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research in interesting and well presented. Some types and lack of spacing between words should be check.

 

Lines 46 and 47: There is research on the matter, please remove this sentence and include references (for example, Qin, Y., Liang, J., Yang, H., & Deng, Z. (2016). Gas permeability of pervious concrete and its implications on the application of pervious pavements. Measurement, 78, 104-110.)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript needs some improvements mostly the language editing, but also from technical point of view.

Line-32: Space in missing between a word and citations

Line 54: Space in missing between a word and citations, please check this throughout the entire manuscript.

There are spelling mistakes as well as grammar.

Line 84: Either for another minute or for 1 more minute..

Line 86: Is it common in China to use wooden molds? Are they coated with something not to absorb the water from concrete?

Why the samples were demolded after 48 h and not after 24 h, is that by the standard?

Line 91-96: It is unclear whether the author had drilled the core cylinders 100x200 mm and then the 50 mm from the top and the bottom were removed, or the cores were drilled right away 100x100 mm. If it is the first case, it was not possible to get 6 samples out of the block with 15x15x860 mm. Figure 1 shows 6 cores of a height 15 mm, meaning 2.5 mm are discarded from the top and the bottom. So which one is it?

Figures 6 and 7 need a better presentation.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a lot of work to respond to the reviewers' comments, and the response is clear and complete. However, the title of this article should be carefully revised before acceptance.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx