How to write a good peer review for a paper

Modeling concrete stduy

Authors
The paper being a numerical study based on a model developed by authors using various experimental
studies to predict moisture movement, pore pressure, and spalling in concrete. Only technical content is
going to be highlighted here as editorial feedback can only be provided if technically paper is acceptable.
Following technical challenges are observed with the paper.
The paper says that there is lack of simple and reliable models to predict pore pressure and spalling in
concrete, however this has been extensively studied earlier by following authors.
1. The presented model is not an all-encompassing model, it targeted a few focused studies (specific cases)
towards the model. It will not be able to model all the complicacies of concrete that is shown at elevated
temperatures.
2. Technically it would be incorrect to customize a spalling free concrete.
3. On page 6, the source/s of Eqs or defining / formulating parameters should be provided.
4. Many Eqs that have been presented are not comprehendible as they lack substantiation.
5. Till the time model is well validated, it cannot be said that it can be used for predictions of spalling
behavior of concrete.
6. Linear interpolation used to determine moisture content and pore pressure at the location is too
simplistic as its highly dynamic under fire conditions.
7. Too many assumptions on a highly unpredictable media such as concrete makes the model unreliable.
8. Many sources of behaviors and resulting assumptions in concrete are based just one study which makes
it a weak presentation of numerical model, e.g. the assumption that permeability of concrete drying at
400°C increases more than 1000 times cannot be signified.
9. While discussing the water release pattern, the study totally ignores the capillary water which is neither
free water not gel water. Capillaries being of various sizes result in differential moisture movement at
various temperatures. Moreover, the removal of gel water and chemical water are highly complicated
and cannot be simplified as suggested by the study.
10. Fig 6 clearly indicates that the model has been intentionally matched to an experimental program and
it does not cater for other results, thus suggest that its highly unreliable.
11. Eq (9) suggests tensile stress related through a scaling factor and directly related to pore pressure, but
in reality, it is not. No information is provided for scaling factor other than that it is taken as 1.
Moreover, development is totally different for NSC and HSC thus not justified.
12. Total disagreement with flow diagram in Fig. 7, temp-time step is missing, heat transfer analysis can
only be done if type of concrete with thermal properties is provided, therefore concrete mix properties
should precede thermal analysis. Thermal analysis should first provide heat transfer analysis, only then
vapor and moisture transfer analysis can be performed. The argument >= cannot be true in spalling it
would be only > if spalling is to occur otherwise it may not occur. The flowchart is therefore flawed.
13. The four studies used for validation are more are less reproduction, whereas only relevant results and
validations should be presented.
14. Volumetric properties are highly dependent on hydration kinetics, whereas simplest and unrealistic
form is presented.
15. Table 5, HPC is extremely difficult to be produced with 0.605 w/c ratio.

Page 1 of 2
16. Definitions of so many acronyms missing.
17. Highlights misleading as compared to study presented with lengthy and repetitive statements.

Page 2 of 2