Plastic Shrinkage and Cracking Behavior of Mortar Containing Recycled Sand from Aerated Blocks and Clay Bricks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

This paper investigated the plastic shrinkage and cracking behaviour of mortar containing recycled sand. The outcome is interesting for readers. However, there are several aspects that need to be improved. The reviewer can only recommend for publication if the author satisfactorily address the following comments in the revised version.

1. The total amount of sand is not constant in the mix presented in Table 3. How the mix are then comparable? The justification of selecting mix design need to be explained.
2. What represents X-axis in the graph from Fig. 3 to Fig. 12?
3. Why the author separately discussed the results of the mix in section 3.1 to 3.5? There should be a comparative evaluation among the mixes.
4. The first three conclusions are more or less similar and talk about water consumption. Suggest to combine them if possible.
5. The novelty of the study should be highlighted in the end of introduction section. How this study is different from the published study in literature?
6. How the outcome of this study will benefit researchers and end users? This need to be highlighted in introduction or end of conclusion.
7. The background study on the recycled sand is insufficient. The growing interest of using recycled sand in construction need to be highlighted. The recent investigation of oil-contaminated sand in concrete [Ref: Characteristics, strength development and microstructure of cement mortar containing oil-contaminated sand] and the use of recycled fillers in 3D-printed concrete [Ref: 3D-printed concrete: applications, performance, and challenges] are particularly important. Suggest to include them in introduction section with proper citations to improve the background study.

I would be happy to see the revised version to understand how these comments are being addressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments This paper investigated the plastic shrinkage and cracking behaviour of mortar containing recycled sand. The outcome is interesting for readers. However, there are several aspects that need to be improved. The reviewer can only recommend for publication if the author satisfactorily address the following comments in the revised version. 1. The total amount of sand is not constant in the mix presented in Table 3. How the mix are then comparable? The justification of selecting mix design need to be explained. Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s comments. The total amount of sand is the same in volume for each group. Because of the varied densities of recycled sand, the volume replacement method was adopted while using the recycled sand to replace the natural sand. This is the reason why the contents of the sand in Table 3 are different for each group. 2. What represents X-axis in the graph from Fig. 3 to Fig. 12? Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s comments. The horizontal axis is the lines along L0, L1 and L2 from left to right, and the title of the horizontal axis is named as “X (mm)”. The title of X-axis has been added in the figures. The size of the specimen is 200mm by 200mm, and the area calculated is about 180mm by 180mm. Therefore, the length of L0, L1 and L2 is about 180mm. 3. Why the author separately discussed the results of the mix in section 3.1 to 3.5? There should be a comparative evaluation among the mixes. Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. One more subsection of “4.1 Comparison analysis” has been added to compare all the samples according to the number of strain concentration zones and the greatest strain concentration. 4. The first three conclusions are more or less similar and talk about water consumption. Suggest to combine them if possible. Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The conclusion has been revised thoroughly and the previous three conclusions are adjusted to two main aspects. 5. The novelty of the study should be highlighted in the end of introduction section. How this study is different from the published study in literature? Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The introduction has been revised thoroughly and more literature analysis has been made to highlight the objectives of this study. 6. How the outcome of this study will benefit researchers and end users? This need to be highlighted in introduction or end of conclusion. Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The conclusion has been revised and more promising outcomes have been provided. 7. The background study on the recycled sand is insufficient. The growing interest of using recycled sand in construction need to be highlighted. The recent investigation of oil-contaminated sand in concrete [Ref: Characteristics, strength development and microstructure of cement mortar containing oil-contaminated sand] and the use of recycled fillers in 3D-printed concrete [Ref: 3D-printed concrete: applications, performance, and challenges] are particularly important. Suggest to include them in introduction section with proper citations to improve the background study. Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The introduction has been revised thoroughly and more references has been added and more literature analysis has also been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is short and do not show the overview of using this waste materials as aggregate and even basic results which were recieved to other scientist.

I suugest to fill the intorduction in this information.

The article shows interesting results of used waste materials as substitute of natural sand.

I suggest to show in figure 1 the scale which is described in the tex in line 60,61.

The comment for table 2 I suggest under table 2.what is the purpose of the chemical comparison of aggregates and cement? Data can be summarized in Table 2, but in aspects, the aggregates should be compared with each other and not with cement.

Line 84 (without „see”)I suggest naming paragraphs 3.1. -3.5. name by name of the test, not by the type of sample and the same for p.4.

 

I suggest linguistic proofreading for article.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. The introduction is short and do not show the overview of using this waste materials as aggregate and even basic results which were recieved to other scientist. I suugest to fill the intorduction in this information.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The introduction has been revised thoroughly and more references has been added and more comprehensive literature study has been made.

2. The article shows interesting results of used waste materials as substitute of natural sand.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s comments.

3. I suggest to show in figure 1 the scale which is described in the tex in line 60,61.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The scale has been added into Figure 1.

4. The comment for table 2 I suggest under table 2.what is the purpose of the chemical comparison of aggregates and cement? Data can be summarized in Table 2, but in aspects, the aggregates should be compared with each other and not with cement.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The introduction has been revised thoroughly and more references has been added and more analysis is put forward.

5. Line 84 (without „see”)I suggest naming paragraphs 3.1. -3.5. name by name of the test, not by the type of sample and the same for p.4.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The name has been revised to “Shrinkage strain distribution analysis for control”.

6. I suggest linguistic proofreading for article.

Answer: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion. The manuscript has been carefully revised by authors and an English native speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no further comments.