Crack control optimization of basement concrete structures using the Mask-RCNN and temperature effect analysis

Shouyan Wu; Feng Fu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0292437

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 13, 2023
6 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Paul Awoyera, Editor PONE-D-23-21940Crack Control Optimization of Basement Concrete Structures Based on the Mask-RCNN and Temperature Effect AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Paul Awoyera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Additional Editor Comments: Ensure that all all the comments from the reviewer are duly addressed. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. “Page 1” “However, due to the particularity of the basement concrete structure, crack control still faces some challenges[10].” It is suggested to explain what is the particularity of the basement concrete structure. 2. “Page 2” “2 Literature Review” It only mentions the research status of crack identification in this paper, lacking the research status of greenhouse effect analysis methods. It is suggested to replenish accordingly. 3. “Page 3” “Compared with traditional image processing methods, the Mask-RCNN algorithm has higher accuracy and stability, which can effectively solve the challenges in crack identification and fill the research gap.” There are no comparisons in the text with the results of traditional method studies, so please check it or make additions. 4. “Page 3” “The mask-RCNN model consists of three main components: Backbone Network, Region Proposal Network (RPN), and Mask Branch. The structure composition is displayed in Figure 1:” It is recommended that the backbone, Regional Proposed Network (RPN) and masked branches be labelled on Figure 1. 5. “Page 3” “Figure 1 signifies that Backbone Network usually uses pre-trained CNNs, such as ResNet or VGGNet, to extract image features.” It is recommended to state whether ResNet or VGGNet was used in this study. 6. “Page 3” “The following steps are used for preprocessing:” It is recommended to give a more specific treatment process and provide a comparison chart of the sample before and after treatment. 7. “Page 6” “Figure 6” The description of Figure 6 in this study is incomplete, and it is suggested that it be supplemented. It can’t be seen in Figure 6 that with the increase of temperature in different experiments, the maximum stress of the structure presents a decreasing trend, please check it. 8. “Page 7” “Figure 9” It is suggested that a graphical note be given in Figure 9 to indicate which experiment 1 to 5 are respectively. 9. “Page 7” “Figure 10” The description of Figure 10(a) is missing from this paper, please add it. 10. “Page 7” “References” Although more than 30 literatures are reviewed in this paper, most of them are from the past three years. There is a lack of review of earlier literatures, and literature research needs to be improved. Finally, there are some grammatical errors and in some cases English is not used properly. The authors should pay attention to correct these mistakes throughout the manuscript. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292437.r001
Revision 1
18 Sep 2023 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. “Page 1” “However, due to the particularity of the basement concrete structure, crack control still faces some challenges[10].” It is suggested to explain what is the particularity of the basement concrete structure. Reply: Thank you for your valuable feedback from the reviewers. There are indeed some challenges regarding the specificity of the concrete structure in the basement, and we strongly agree with this. Hence, I added an explanation in the introduction about the particularity of the concrete structure in the basement. Concrete structures in basements often face several special factors, such as the particularity of the underground environment, load and constraint conditions, and temperature effects. 2. “Page 2” “2 Literature Review” It only mentions the research status of crack identification in this paper, lacking the research status of greenhouse effect analysis methods. It is suggested to replenish accordingly. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We attach great importance to your feedback. In the article, We should supplement and clarify the research status of greenhouse effect analysis methods. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the literature review section to include the latest research progress related to greenhouse effect analysis methods (in the past five years). This will help readers better understand the positioning and value of our research in the field of greenhouse effect analysis methods. 3. “Page 3” “Compared with traditional image processing methods, the Mask-RCNN algorithm has higher accuracy and stability, which can effectively solve the challenges in crack identification and fill the research gap.” There are no comparisons in the text with the results of traditional method studies, so please check it or make additions. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. Your viewpoint is very valuable; indeed, there is no comparison with the research results of traditional methods in the article. We have added a comparison of experimental results with traditional methods in the revised manuscript (Figure 10) to support the superiority of our proposed Mask RCNN algorithm. By comparing the optimization performance with traditional image processing methods, including crack density, average crack length, average crack width, maximum stress concentration, and maximum deformation, it helps to more comprehensively demonstrate the advantages of the Mask RCNN algorithm in crack recognition. 4. “Page 3” “The mask-RCNN model consists of three main components: Backbone Network, Region Proposal Network (RPN), and Mask Branch. The structure composition is displayed in Figure 1:” It is recommended that the backbone, Regional Proposed Network (RPN) and masked branches be labelled on Figure 1. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added labels in Figure 1 of the article to clearly display the three main components of the Mask RCNN model: Backbone Network, Region Proposal Network (RPN), and Mask Branch, to help readers better understand the structural composition of the Mask-RCNN model. This can improve the readability and comprehension of the article. 5. “Page 3” “Figure 1 signifies that Backbone Network usually uses pre-trained CNNs, such as ResNet or VGGNet, to extract image features.” It is recommended to state whether ResNet or VGGNet was used in this study. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have modified this sentence. Figure 1 shows that the backbone network uses pre-trained convolutional neural networks, where VGGNet is used to extract image features. 6. “Page 3” “The following steps are used for preprocessing:” It is recommended to give a more specific treatment process and provide a comparison chart of the sample before and after treatment. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised draft, we provided more detailed preprocessing steps, including a specific description of the processing process, and added a comparison chart of the samples before and after processing (Figure 2) to more clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the processing. These improvements help readers better understand our preprocessing process and the impact of processing on the samples. Thank you again for your suggestion. 7. “Page 6” “Figure 6” The description of Figure 6 in this study is incomplete, and it is suggested that it be supplemented. It can’t be seen in Figure 6 that with the increase of temperature in different experiments, the maximum stress of the structure presents a decreasing trend, please check it. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We do realize that the description of Figure 6 (now Figure 7) is incomplete, so we have revised the form of Figure 6 in the revised draft to provide more detailed trend explanations and supplementary explanations to ensure that readers can better understand the content of the figure. Regarding the relationship between temperature and maximum stress, we have provided more context and explanation to demonstrate that in different experiments, the maximum stress of the structure does indeed show a decreasing trend with increasing temperature. This key observation has been better explained and presented in the revised draft. 8. “Page 7” “Figure 9” It is suggested that a graphical note be given in Figure 9 to indicate which experiment 1 to 5 are respectively. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. I have modified the format of Figure 9 (now Figure 11) and added a legend to indicate Experiment 1 to Experiment 5. This legend will include identification and corresponding color coding for each experiment to ensure the readability and comprehensibility of the diagram. 9. “Page 7” “Figure 10” The description of Figure 10(a) is missing from this paper, please add it. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's correction. We have added a detailed description of Figure 10 (a) (now Figure 12) in the revised draft to ensure a clear explanation and interpretation of the figure. This will include data, trends, and information related to key findings in the study in the chart. 10. “Page 7” “References” Although more than 30 literatures are reviewed in this paper, most of them are from the past three years. There is a lack of review of earlier literatures, and literature research needs to be improved. Reply: Thank you for the guidance of the reviewer. We are very grateful for your valuable feedback. We fully agree with your viewpoint on the shortcomings of the literature review. In the revised manuscript, we delved into and integrated earlier literature in the literature review section to provide a more comprehensive historical background and tracking of research development. This will help readers better understand the role and value of this study and our contributions to related fields. Finally, there are some grammatical errors and in some cases English is not used properly. The authors should pay attention to correct these mistakes throughout the manuscript. Reply: Thank you for the reviewer's review and correction. We recognize that there are some grammar errors and inappropriate English expressions in the article. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully reviewed each section of the article, paying special attention to grammar, spelling, and expression issues, and consulted professional language editors to improve the readability and professionalism of the article, striving to ensure that it meets the standards. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292437.r002
20 Sep 2023 Decision Letter - Paul Awoyera, Editor Crack Control Optimization of Basement Concrete Structures Using the Mask-RCNN and Temperature Effect Analysis PONE-D-23-21940R1 Dear Dr. Fu, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Paul Awoyera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the comments. Manuscript improved quality. Now, it is acceptable. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292437.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Sep 2023 Acceptance Letter - Paul Awoyera, Editor PONE-D-23-21940R1 Crack Control Optimization of Basement Concrete Structures Using the Mask-RCNN and Temperature Effect Analysis Dear Dr. Fu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Paul Awoyera Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292437.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .