Barriers and Facilitators for Usage of Self-Compacting Concrete—An Interview Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Identification of limitations and research opportunities in the field of self-compacting concrete constitutes the basis for the analysis of technological development, in particular taking into account organizational, industrial and human factors. The analysis of the BTOH model contains a certain amount of information that can be used to make decisions regarding the development of self-compact concrete. However, there are some issues in the article that require clarification:

1. The introduction should expand the information regarding the temporary introduction of self-compacting concrete solutions in Sweden; in other words, what was developed before 2000 and what progress occurred after that period;

2. The second chapter on the literature review should refer to self-compacting concrete in each of the subchapters: Business, Technology, Organization, Humans - without these references, this part of the article gives the impression of very extended definitions;

3. In the third chapter, it should be characterized in more detail: “A qualitative manifest content analysis” - first of all, it should be added two/three sentences for 5 points of this analysis;

4. In the fourth chapter, a table with points for the answers should be added and, above all, there is no basic statistical analysis for the answers provided: mean, deviation and standard error;

5. Chapter five on the analysis of results - there is no sensitivity analysis for the results and relationships between individual groups, which can be presented graphically or numerically;

6. In chapter six, it should be added a simple chart showing the hierarchy of factors that have a decisive role;

7. In chapter seven, a few sentences should be added regarding the limitations related to cement production, which is closely related to CO₂ emissions - how the environmental factor influences decision-making;

8. In your conclusions, please add a few sentences about the group of employees on whom the survey was conducted and indicate the group that had the greatest experience.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for your manuscript, here will be following remarks:

1. please rewrite your abstract. Starting it from the sentence “The construction industry has one of the highest frequencies of sick leave caused both by accidents and by work-related diseases. Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a fluid concrete and does not need vibrations.” Does not feel as a good start. The safety on site is guaranteed by construction companies; the sick-leaves are the results of many factors; SCC not commonly used in Sweden? maybe due to technological aspects or conservative concepts and price? Please look into it more in detail. Your abstract requires polishing. If you want to promote SCC in Sweden, please, ask for help to read your paper and adjust “sharp corners”.

2. Avoid repetitions!

3. Line 35: reference is dated by 2012; we are now in 2024 - no changes in Sweden since that time? please add up to date info.

4. This journal has title “Inventions” and that would mean tech language used in description is of high quality and reader is expert in the field. Please avoid general description like in lines 40-44 or choose another journal with less tech direction.

5. Lines 52-53: if you add here calculation how much it cost to produce m3 for the same structure with traditional concrete; then it will be an answer why it is not so popular. Contact some concrete companies for that estimation.

6. Line 65: impressive business model from 1997! Construction sector is extremely conservative if business models from that age are still applied

7. Innovations cost money, please bring some numbers: how much money construction companies invest in their innovation and personnel well-being! It is well known that many companies work like in stone age with minimalistic upgrades. and yes majority doesn’t care about innovations, but about yearly turnover at least expenditures. 

8. I miss some up to date sharpness in your paper; it feels that not enough critics inside what you write and no estimations along. Market is pretty tough these days and construction working environment is pretty intense.

9. Table 1: are you serious 3 persons per category? was it a student job to collect all these interviews? please get on board some more professional info! you can make online anonymous questionnaire and contact companies for an info! I mean you write about Swedish construction sector and you have only 24 reports?! 

10. Figure 3. is badly readable. Increase font.

11. Plain text in Discussions!? - present the outcome of your work in flow charts, diagrams etc. make it more visible …

12. Conclusions - short and clear in bullet form

13. Please avoid too long written text without any figure or chart, for dino construction sector - fresh & up to date, visually attractive information and numbers.

ok

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a current work that shows great shortcomings. In this sense, the document must be significantly improved if it is to be eligible for possible publication. Some comments are indicated:

Some sentences in the summary are very short and telegraphic, improve the writing.

Additionally, the sections in bold "purpose, design, methodology..." must be deleted, the summary must be coherent in itself in a single paragraph and must be able to be read continuously.

In Figure 1, and therefore in the background, the environmental issue is left aside. This section is fundamental in current business models and must be included in the literature review. Especially when talking about a sector as polluting as construction.

The analysis carried out on the interviews is very circumstantial. Only some comments from these interviewed people are paraphrased and they are discussed with little depth and bibliographical references. The use of computer software such as ATLAS.ti or similar is recommended, as well as a more in-depth presentation of the results.

The discussion is appropriate.

The conclusions need to be improved, including the broad limitations of this study (for example the lack of parity in gender equality), as well as future lines of work and implications.

In the case of this study, the "Informed Consent Statement:" section must be completed. Otherwise the article deserves to be rejected.

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled “Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Usage of Self-Compacting Concrete” is partly in line with the Inventions journal. This article is based on the methodology for humanistic science and it is supported basically by reviews. The topic of the reviews is connected with civil engineering. The manuscript has a proper composition, but before publication, it requires revisions and some changes, including:

·       Type of article (line 1): “Article” – please see the template

·       All content of the article: reference style is not coherent with the template.

·       Introduction: The literature gap should be pointed and novelty aspects should be articulated, including the significance of provided research.

·       Chapter 2: The literature background should be based on the new literature. Most of the applied positions are old. This part has to be updated.

·       Chapter 3: the content of the form should be described in more detail. Additionally, this form (translated into English) used for the reviews should be added as an attachment.

·       Chapter 3: justify why this method of analysis was selected.

·       Discussion based on the old literature. What is the current market situation?

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript describes the results of research into the reasons for the less frequent use of self-compacting concrete in Sweden than in other countries. To a lesser extent, the authors also discuss the problem of using carpet reinforcement, which is not included in the title, but in my opinion it does not have to be, because it is an extra question.

The manuscript is very interesting. As a specialist in concrete structures and at the same time a practicing engineer, I was very curious whether my opinions on self-compacting concrete would coincide with the opinions of survey participants. It turns out that yes.

My critical remarks are quite general and I leave their consideration to the authors' decision.

1) One of the reasons for taking up the topic, according to the authors, are the great threats that appear during the compacting of traditional concrete. This is quite a controversial thesis, I have not personally heard that this process is particularly accident-causing. The survey results do not confirm this either. Unfortunately, the cited AFA research is in Swedish and I am not able to verify what type of vibration it is about (related to concrete compaction or other). It's hard to argue with the facts, but 46% of vibration related injuries (line 40) is a huge percentage.

2) The literature review is, in my opinion, too uncritical. The authors try to select studies showing only the advantages of self-compacting concrete, some of them rather untrue (e.g. the use of SCC concrete is generally cheaper - line 53). Discussion of critical features only appears in the discussion and summary. One of the contractors who often use SCC indicates "claims of SCC ... could be exaggerated" (line 356). These concretes only seem to be easier to use, I have personally encountered cases of SCC structures in which there was a huge segregation of aggregate.

3) There are no representatives of self-compacting (and ordinary) concrete producers among the respondents. Self-compacting concrete must be produced in particularly controlled conditions, the type and grain size of the aggregate are very important. These issues were completely omitted in the manuscript, the authors focused only on the construction process. I consider the omission of concrete producers in the survey process to be the manuscript's biggest flaw.

4) The argument for using self-compacting concrete for walls with sprayed concrete (line 444) is a bit incomprehensible to me - it's probably not self-compacting concrete that could flow off the wall

5) The citation format seems to be inconsistent with MDPI requirements (numbering in brackets [])

Author Response

Please see attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been well improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks again for your support in improving the manuscript!

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

for your abstract:

“Workers in the construction industry must endure different weather conditions, long working hours, engage in repetitive and strenuous jobs with unrealistic deadlines. Sick leaves, cased by accidents and by work-related diseases, are common in the construction industry. “

ok

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks again for your support in our improvement of the manuscript!

We are also grateful for your suggestion for the abstract, which we have included in full. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made all the changes proposed by the reviewer and have significantly improved the quality of the original manuscript. The reviewer would like to congratulate the authors for their work during this revision period.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks again for your support in our improvement of the manuscript!

Best regards,

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled “Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Usage of Self-Compacting Concrete” has been improved, However, the methodology of the provided research is not clear, and because of that also results are just an author's opinion. The text should be treated as an author opinion or report not as a research article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf