Assessment of Strength and Durability Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete Comprising Alccofine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study focuses on the fresh, strength and durability properties of SCC by partially replacing cement with varying percentages of alccofine such as 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60%. The fresh properties are examined using Slump flow, T50, V-funnel, and L-box as per European guidelines. The mechanical and durability properties are probed by Compressive strength test, Modulus of rupture, Young’s modulus of concrete and Water Absorption, Sorptivity, Sulphate Resistance, Acid Resistance that are compared with conventional SCC. The abstract is well-written as the abstract required to have a short introduction, problem statement, significant finding, and conclude the abstract with your outcome or novelty. The conclusion has been written well and tightened to reveal the overall finding. The paper is fruitful and of interest to future readership and includes information on an interesting topic, it is both well written and well organized. Although the testing methods and compared results attained in the present study show the importance of the paper, the authors should address the following comments:

1. Throughout the text, there are some typos that must be eliminated.
2. There should be a space between number and unit. Please correct these errors in the paper (Line# 69, 72, 73 so on).
3. Please add novelty of this study last paragraph of Introduction section.
4. Please use “×” instead of “x” throughout the manuscript.
5. SCC-A0, SCC-A10 may be more appropriate for Mix ID.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We are very grateful for the insightful comments on this manuscript. The reviews were encouraging and have been considered in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs to be improved in different aspects. Please find the suggested comments to be addressed:

1. Some of the references is out of date. Especially those items cited by the Authors in chapter 2 (for example: guidelines [8] can be replaced with ISO 1920-13). It is inappropriate to use national standards (especially if they were issued more than 50 years ago). There is a whole group of ISO standards that describe concrete testing. Using the national symbols of cement  make the results and analyzes difficult to read.
2. In Chapter 2, which describes the materials and methods, the authors also reported the test results for SCC (Table 2). Please separate the information on the composition from the results of concrete tests (I suggest separate tables, placed in chapters 2 and 3 respectively).  

   Chapter 2 needs to be supplemented with information:

   • how many specimens of each type of SCC was tested?
   • was the statistical analysis of the results carried out?

   Consequently, information about the number of samples/tests should be repeated in chapter 3.

3. Table 3 - What was the purpose of providing data on concrete types other than those studied by the authors? I suggest presenting and analyzing the results only for SCC (in line with the topic of the article). column 1 is illegible.
4. Why are linear relationships between concrete strength and Alccofine content proposed in Figures 12 and 13? These figures need to be changed - only show the results for the SCC.
5. Line 335-341 - Divagations not confirmed by authors research or literature data. Otherwise, authors should delete this text.
6. There are some editing errors in the article, for example:
   - there is: young's modulus, it should be: Young's modulus
   - there is: HCL, it should be: HCl
   - there is "no. xxxx" in reference number 32, 51, 57?

Author Response

Dear reviewer

We are very grateful for the insightful comments on this manuscript. The reviews were encouraging and have been considered in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The readability of the reviewed article was improved, and gaps in the literature were filled. The revised version of the article represents a higher substantive level.

Author Response

Once again, we are grateful to you for your valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. Since the comments are positive and no revisions are required.