PONE-D-24-21940ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. DJOPKOP,

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.

The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. They request improvements to the clarity of the methods and writing. Additional statistical analysis is also required.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2024 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,

Helen Howard

Staff 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author “Merlin Bodol Momha,  Jean Chills Amba,  Ambassa Zoa, Joseph Nkongho Anyi, Robert Nzengwa”

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: • Overall Strengths: The manuscript offers a novel contribution to the field by integrating multiple phenomena that affect concrete performance over time, making it particularly valuable for long-term structural design applications. The proposed TCHM model is robust and well-supported by experimental data.

• Areas for Improvement:

1. Data Interpretation: Provide more detailed explanations for intermediate results, particularly regarding the effects of hydration and delayed deformations on the overall structural behavior.

2. Statistical Analysis: Consider performing sensitivity analysis to further validate your model and provide deeper insights into the impact of key parameters.

3. Data Sharing: Ensure that all underlying data, including raw measurements, are made fully available in accordance with PLOS ONE's data policy.

4. Language: Simplify the presentation of some technical content to improve readability and correct minor typographical and grammatical errors.

Conclusion: The manuscript is scientifically sound and offers important insights for concrete shell design. With minor revisions to improve data accessibility, statistical rigor, and clarity, it is suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: The paper covers an important topic, but the authors need to strengthen the logical reasoning and clarity of the results. Specifically:

1. Revise the abstract to include details about the experimental work, outcomes, and recommendations.

2. Provide more in-depth explanations in the section discussing linear shrinkage.

3. Add a paragraph outlining potential future research directions based on the current study.

4. Include a paragraph at the end of the introduction emphasizing the research significance of the study.

5. Update the references with more recent research, as there are no citations from 2024 and only two from 2023, to better support the ideas and highlight the novelty of the work.

Reviewer #3: This article aims to describe a more complete framework by which to evaluate structural deformation in thin-shelled concrete dome structures: by including the contributions of thermochemical and hydromechanical behavior (e.g. creep) of concrete, in addition to typical elastic deformation. The paper then showcases the results of the proposed methodology by an analysis of a structure designed like an aircraft, particularly in the fuselage-like portion.

While the proposed article has potential, and appears to investigate an area of interest, the article lacks clarity in a number of areas. This makes the article difficult to evaluate from the perspective of novelty, completeness, and value of the proposed method. Particularly, the article needs to better address the following areas:

1. Many of the terms that are used are not defined, and not motivated. Particularly,

a. It is not clear why the Kronecker delta is only define don the midsurface.

b. What is \mu^\rho_\alpha, which is on the last line of the first page of the document? What does it physically correspond to?

c. Does the document use summation notation on indices or not?

d. What is the physical meaning of \psi (the first equation of the second page?

e. When \omega_L is introduced on page 5, it should be explicitly mentioned (using the language from the start of the text) that this is the free water content.

f. A description of the variables and parameters in Equations 2 and 3 are not present in the text. What are these? Without physical intuition and meaning, it is hard to motivate why the method of choice by the authors is appropriate.

g. What does “The drying parameter A and \delta are numerically adjusted after the resolution” mean (see line 141 of the text)? Are these parameters that are fit based on experimental data? Or to match a given deformation? Please clarify.

h. Is k of line 148 the same as \kappa in line 147? What do these calibration parameters correspond to? What is their physical meaning?

i. Variables in Section 3.3 lack definition, explanation, and intuition. Please label these variables and describe what they mean. What is the intuition that a practitioner can use to understand these? Also, for equation 13, what is the meaning of the numbers 1000 for concretes with silica fume and 3200 for those without silica fume? What is the repercussion for changing these numbers in this way? Where did these numbers come from?

j. Should Ac and Bc of equations 179 and 180 be A_c and B_c, where the _ denotes a subscript?

k. The right hand side of the equation r = … on line 181 is not legible

l. Variables in Section 3.4 also lack definitions and any understanding. As a result, it is hard to evaluate the merit of the proposed method or determine what the proposed operations are doing.

m. The sentences between lines 187 and 188 are not clear.

n. The variables in Section 3.5 also lack definitions and any sense of intuition

o. Is U_{ad}, on line 197, the Cartesian product of Sobolev spaces? Or are the x variables in line 198 actually x’s. Please clarify.

p. It would be nice to see on or near line 201 that this is essentially the equations of linear elasticity and lambda and mu are Lame parameters.

q. Again, Equations 24 through 27 are not readable and lack any intuition. Where are these coming from? What do they mean? Each in isolation can be digested, but when all of them are crowded into a few very small lines, they remain indecipherable.

r. What are the variables used in Equations 28 and 29? Only some of them are declared in the subsequent lines. What about alpha? \bar{v} (Poisson’s ratio?) Please clarify. It is also hard to see which parentheses lead to multiplications and which ones are function evaluations. Could you use a dot product dot to indicate multiplication?

s. Lines 218 through 248 again lack any intuition. From what equations are these equations substituted into? Again, a lack of understanding, intuition, and definitions on most of the variables used herein make this feel more like spewing a list of equations rather than doing anything to build intuition, motivation, or confidence in the methods used.

t. What kinds of isoparametric Lagrangian symplectic triangle finite elements are used? Quadratic?

u. It appears that some variables may be overloaded (i.e. used twice to define different phenomena), such as A in line 141 and in line 179. These overloads should be removed---particularly because there is already a significant amount of different information being conveyed.

v. The Gauss tensor, Q_{\alpha \beta}, appears to be first introduced in line 375 of the document. Please introduce earlier and define earlier.

2. Some of the symbols defined appear to never be used, such as the Christoffel symbol. Please review the article to better clarify symbols used and to remove any extraneous symbols.

3. The article currently feels like a compilation of many different methods into a single method. However, the choice of these methods is not motivated. Do the assumptions of these methods work in conjunction with each other? Why, among all methods, were these methods chosen? Is there novelty beyond simply putting everything together? If so, what is it?

4. Why are different specimen dimensions used for shrinkage and drying experiments in Section 4.2.2? Were both following a methodology published in the literature? If not, why the variation?

5. What variables are fit in lines 301 and 302? Are these corresponding to Equations 3 and 5? If so please clarify.

6. How was the time evolution of water content measured in Section 5.1.ii? Please also clarify how measurements were taken and the meaning of the quantities in the legend of Figure 5.

7. How were damage evolution parameters determined? Are they based on experimental data, or on numerical simulations, based on reference from other publications?

8. There is not a clear distinction between what measurements and data relate to experimental data and what relates to numerical data throughout Section 5.2. Please clarify.

9. Many of the figures show behavior that has not leveled off asymptotically, such as in Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figures 14. These are for structural information that should stabilize. Why is such a stabilization not present? Is this due to lack of computing resources, or ability to measure? I question the validity of the model if, for example, the thickness of the shell linearly deteriorates indefinitely, or if the strain at node E continues to change indefinitely.

10. Some of the labels and graphics are difficult to read because lines are present on top of other lines. If this is the case, could the authors please put nodes that correspond to different graph lines in different locations so figures are more easily decipherable?

11. It is not clear if there was any validation of the model on the actual constructed structure. If not, please clarify why. For such a complex model, there should be some validation that the results produced are meaningful and give higher-fidelity results than significantly simpler models.

In addition, there are a number of typographical errors throughout the article (e.g. Finite Element Method should all be lower-case in the abstract, ThermoChemical and HydroMechanical should also be lower-case and hyphenated, the mapping u from the closure of the domain should probably go to R^3, etc). Overall, this did not impede my ability to read and follow the article, but removing the typos would be important prior to publication. Also, why is the Reissner-Mindlin shell element referred to as Q4GG? If this is particular notation to some software, please reference it or remove it. Otherwise, please cite the specific version of the Reissner-Mindlin shell that is the Q4GG element used.

Finally, some of the superscripts and subscripts on symbols---particularly those using a percent sign as a subscript----were difficult to read and should be typeset in a more readable manner.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-21940R1

ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. DJOPKOP,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected.

Specifically:

==============================

see below

==============================

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Kind regards,

Pawel Klosowski, D.Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The previous version of the paper has one Author, the current one has five additional co-authors. In the cover letter there is no explanation. It is not ethic to add coauthors when one expect that paper will be published. Therefore I decided to reject the paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: 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 #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: No

**********

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 #2: There are some grammatical mistakes in the manuscript that need to be removed such as wrong spelling of thickness in abstract.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Asad Zia

**********

[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.]

- - - - -

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

PONE-D-24-21940R2ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. LANDRY KOUANANG DJOPKOP,

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 7th April. 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,

Dajiang Geng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. We notice that your manuscript file was uploaded on December 14, 2024. Please can you upload the latest version of your revised manuscript as the main article file, ensuring that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting. This will be used in the production process if your manuscript is accepted. Please follow this link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/

2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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 #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 #3: Review of

ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS

The quality of the manuscript has improved significantly with the most recent revision. Many of the ideas that were unclear are now clear. However, there are still a number of remaining concerns.

1. Please make \mu^\rho_\alpha into its own equation shortly before or after line 32.

2. There is a host of variables that are used herein. However, the nomenclature section only contains about ½ of them. Please place all variables in the nomenclature section and define them therein so that readers know at least one place they can go to follow what is being written. Current in-text definitions are also helpful, but are insufficient (as discussed more below).

3. From what I can see, summation notation is used throughout. Please indicate this near the beginning of the document. If there are instances where summation notation is not used, please explicitly call these out.

4. Please clarify on Equation 12 if \epsilon_{cd} is a computed quantity or if it is provided from experiments. If it is computed (and leads to total strain), consider moving it to the left hand side of an equation.

5. The role of creep (Section 3.3) in the overall model. \epsilon^{cr} is defined in the beginning and used in Figure 2, but it does not seem to be present in Section 3.3. Additionally, the total creep function (Equation 14) is confusing in the following ways

a. The expression J(t,t_0) does not appear to be used anywhere else in the document. As a consequence, it is not clear how this contributes to creep (e.g. in the algorithm of Figure 2). Please clarify. How is this related to \epsilon^{cr}?

b. The quantities E_c, E_{c28}, and s in Equation 14 are not defined.

c. Both the self-creep and the desiccation creep are defined (in Equations 9 and 12, respectively) prior to their use in Equation 14. However, the other term (1/E_c(t_0)) is never discussed prior to its use in Equation 14. What does this represent?

d. Why are the creep terms divided by the E_{c28} terms?

6. Quantities in Section 3.4 are undefined and often not motivated.

a. Particularly, what do Y_0, Y, A, B, \epsilon_do \epsilon, A_t, j, k, r, A_c, B, B_t, B_c, \tilde{sigma_i}, \epsilon_{eq}^{\corr}, <__>_{-}, <__>_{+}, and \gamma physically mean?

b. Where does someone trying to reproduce this work get information about how to get these variables? A couple are discussed as equations (e.g. Y_0), but others (e.g. k) are not. Please be clearer. The final paragraph of Section 3.4 is a good start, but is insufficient.

7. Quantities in Section 3.5 also need clarification.

a. Is \bar{q} a number? If so, why does it does it have superscripts in line 282? If not, why is the set of admissible displacements only the Cartesian product of 4 Sobolev spaces (i.e. 3 for u and 1 for q)?

b. Please describe what the stretching displacement does in words.

c. S (in H^1(S)) is not defined. Is this the surface? The midsurface? The entire domain? It appears to be defined as the midsurface in Line 232, but it is first used in Line 224. This is confusing.

d. G^{\alpha \beta} (and similar indexed terms on e.g. Line 229) are never defined, though it is presumed that they relate to the contravariant bases of the shell. Are they inner products of these bases? Or subscripts of the bases? Please clarify.

e. A in Line 229 is not defined, and its relationship with C in Line 234 is also unclear. Please clarify.

f. Subscript indices on \epsilon^\eta and \epsilon^q in line 238 appear to be missing.

g. Tensors e, k, and Q are used in Equation 26 (Line 241), but are undefined. They appear to be defined on Lines 275, 277, and 278. Please define these shortly after their first use, rather than defining them over an entire page later.

h. The tensor Y on line 260 is not defined. Please clarify.

i. What are the terms in the linear form (i.e. L(v,\bar{y}) on line 282? Similarly, what are the terms in the integrands of Line 283. Define all terms so that the information can be used and so that it is appropriately motivated. Define them both using equations (where relevant) and verbally. If it is a linear form, why is q (an unknown as per Line 218) present in it?

j. Notation with \partial_\alpha (e.g. line 261) and with commas in index notation (e.g. line 276) are both used. Please clarify if both are partial derivatives or if they indicate different behavior.

8. Figure 2 is the only way to understand how all of the information from Section 3 is integrated. However, it is not well introduced in the text of Section 4. Please spend more time discussing this figure so that readers can understand how the information from Section 3 can be used in your model. Also, there appear to be many, many more input parameters for the algorithm than just the time of simulation and the number of time increments (e.g. Lame parameters and/or Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, j=0.7, etc).

9. Please improve Figure 2 to

a. Include arrows between every box/shape.

b. Have a caption that more fully describes the algorithm.

c. If the numerical experiment is only a maximum of 50 days, why is the creep strain ignored until after 28 days? Please clarify in the text.

d. It appears that the algorithm is nonlinear. However, the nonlinearity is not clearly indicated (through e.g. arrows) in Figure 2. Please clarify the iterative/nonlinear process for each time step, or please clarify that the method is not linear.

10. The numerical implementation section spends a significant amount of discussion on how parameters were extracted using experiments. Please separate the experimental/material parameter discussion into a separate section before the numerical implementation. This will also clarify what experimental work is done and what is actually numerical.

11. Similarly, the results and discussions section makes it unclear what results are numerical and what results are due to the model. Please explicitly declare what results are experimental and which ones are numerical. It is my understanding that almost all results are numerical except for those in the “Intermediate Results” section. Is this correct?

12. The text between Lines 422 and 427 confuses me. Does this indicate that for a static (elastic) analysis to produce the same amount of displacement as this model (which includes creep, damage, thermal effects, etc), the static analysis would have to apply a force 183x larger than that applied when including creep, damage, etc?

13. Temperatures on each day are shown in Figure 8. However, analysis was only performed for 50 days. On what day did this analysis begin? Which temperature values were used, and over which of 50 days of the 365 displayed?

14. What time steps were used for this analysis? One time step per day? What kind of solver was used? Implicit or explicit?

15. Please clarify in the text why you can be confident that the chosen time step increments were appropriate and stable. Similarly, if there is a nonlinearity in each time step, please indicate why you can have confidence that the number of nonlinear iterations was appropriate to resolve behavior in each time step.

16. The authors indicate that they believe that their simulations approach asymptotic behavior. However, Figures 12, 13, and 14 do not seem to demonstrate that the model reaches an asymptotic stability over the course of 50 days. In the rebuttal, authors have declared that they lack computational ability to perform additional analysis and that this one already took 8 days. This makes sense. However, the authors should clarify in the conclusions that asymptotic behavior for their model is believed, but that further research is needed to clarify that the proposed method is applicable for long timeframes. Particularly, it is not clear to the reviewer that displacement will not increase indefinitely and that the model accurately represents what would be anticipated experimentally. This deficiency does not discredit this work; however, this lack of clarity should be openly stated.

17. Readability issues:

a. Please revisit the sentence starting on line 86 for clarity.

b. Line 169: “Given the small size of the shell…” Should this be “Given the small thickness of the shell…”?

c. The sentence beginning on line 190 is incomplete.

d. Please indicate units of liters using a capital L rather than a lower-case L.

Reviewer #4: This paper considers the thermochemical and hydro-mechanical (TCHM) behavior of

Concrete in the analysis. Overall, this is a fascinating topic. My main concern is that it is unclear how many specimens were used in the experimental test to determine the concrete characteristics over time (shrinkage, deflection, thickness). It is not proper to conclude based on the few specimens.

This is an intriguing topic, and the overall approach is valid; I suggest it be considered for publishing after careful language editing and resolving the issues mentioned in the attachment.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: 3-Review on Self-supporting shell-final.pdf

PONE-D-24-21940R3ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS.PLOS One

Dear Dr. DJOPKOP,

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.

The Academic Editor has assessed your revisions and they are satisfied that all scientific concerns have been addressed. However, before we proceed with publication, we kindly ask you to thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 1) The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

2) A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

3) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file). We thank you for your attention to this request, and we look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 2025 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,

Hugh Cowley

Senior Editor

PLOS One

on behalf of

Dajiang Geng

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

ANALYSIS OF A SELF-SUPPORTING SHELL CONCRETE ROOF WITH NONLINEAR COUPLED EVOLUTIVE MATERIAL PARAMETERS.

PONE-D-24-21940R4

Dear Dr. LANDRY KOUANANG DJOPKOP,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Dajiang Geng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: