Sustainable Alternate Materials for Concrete Production from Renewable Source and Waste

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very detailed SEM/EDX and XRD analysis for concrete with M-sand and CS aggregates with good comparison of performance with R-sand and crushed aggregates. Good discussions on the results .You could provide some more information as follows for further clarity :

1. The sample preparation methods, the equipment type/specs and conditions of running SEM/EDX and XRD
2. How many samples for each of the mix tested for such microstructural study -- are they typical values or best selected values or mean values 
3. In general the readability of the main body of the paper is OK, but grammatical errors are visible in many places. The use of word or phrase is also non-conventional (like Figure 7 exposes...., Figure 8 exposes....). Typically it is written as "Figure 7 shows or Figure 7 displays ...." This is just one example, there are few more.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I want to say to the authors that this work present interesting ideas that are potentially of interest to both academics and practitioners. And this is well designed, carefully conducted empirical research for the field of Energies.

 

The introduction of the paper delivers adequately into the specific research methodology and sample issues. The review of literature isn’t enough. This field of research is very important and there are significant applied studies. It may prove useful to deep in the review of sustainable materials, coconut shell, etc. The inclusion of this work in the field of sustainability should be more justified. Moreover, Introduction should give the essentials insights about the methodology of the study and draw briefly the structure of the paper (more or less 1page and 1/2).

 

 

The methodology used can be deemed appropriate, and the authors’ presentation of the results is clear and concise, thus facilitating the reader’s understanding, but it would be necessary to deepen in the limitations of the chosen methodology.

 

You should present the findings (compare the characteristics of M-sand and R-sand) in a table in order to be more clear.

 

It would be interesting to know whether the results presented differ from previous studies. This would add value to the findings.

 

Finally, in conclusion section, it would be interesting to include the most important contributions, research limitations, future research lines and managerial implications

 

Remove some self-citations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper with the title “Sustainable alternate materials for concrete production from renewable source and waste” was presented as an experimental study. The manuscript is well written, but there are some uncertainties. There are some comments about improving the quality of the paper as follows:

1. In this paper, it is not shown that this new type of composite material has any advantages or disadvantages compared with the traditional concrete material in mechanical properties.
2. The research gap should be addressed in the introduction, as well as the novelty. More up-to-date articles, especially recycled aggregate concrete, are required. For recycled concrete application and composites, please refer to Axial compression behavior of recycled-aggregate-concrete-filled GFRP–steel composite tube columns, Real-time detection of surface deformation and strain in recycled aggregate concrete-filled steel tubular columns via four-ocular vision.
3. The curves of M Sand and R sand in table 3 are too close to each other. It is suggested that the curves be enlarged or added to make the readers better understand the differences between the two materials.
4. In this paper, the authors study the Mechanical Properties of a cylinder and a beam with a CSC specimen, but the data of these researches are not given.
5. The author chooses 0,1,3,7,28 as the Observation Day age for what consideration, please elaborate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been carefully revised by the authors and it satisfies my criteria for publication in the journal.

 

Thank you