Review Reports - Durability of Engineered Cementitious Composites Incorporating High-Volume Fly Ash and Limestone Powder

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

In this manuscript, the authors showed the effects of using limestone powder (LSP) and high-volume fly ash (FA) as partial replacement for silica sand (SS) and portland cement (PC), respectively, on the durability properties of sustainable engineered cementitious composites (ECC). The use of English is satisfactory and the article can be followed easily. The title accurately reflects the study. The objective is well defined and I have no criticisms regarding the interpretation of results. However, I think that the article is not ready for publication as it stands. The questions are as follows:

1. In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Currently, this is not performed in a convincing way. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals.

2. Before proceeding to describe your experiment, materials and actions, please describe your scientific hypothesis, concepts and the relevant reasoning for choosing the particular modelling approach. This should be accompanied by an overall description of the followed procedure. A block diagram of the procedure would be also very useful.

3. If this is an experimental study, I think experimental data should be shown in the corresponding Figure as well as fitting model. How many runs does the experimental procedure consist of ?

4. Page 3 line 109: Please modify the form in table 2.

5. Page 5 line 158: There are too many pictures, it is recommended to delete Figure 2 to 4, because they are all routine experiments.

6. Pearson's correlation analysis (parametric test, based of data with normal distributions for both Y and X variables) is mentioned in the Methods, but it is not mentioned in the results (text/figure/tables), and there is no evidence that it was used in any part of the analysis or paper.

7. To make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article. The current conclusion is written very wide and it is not easy to maintain the key findings.

8. In the table heading, specify the statistics and sample sizes used to report the data.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the in-depth comments and constructive feedback, which enhanced the final manuscript. A point-by-point response summarizing how we addressed each comment is provided below.

In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals. Currently, this is not performed in a convincing way. Please follow the literature review by a clear and concise state of the art analysis. This should clearly show the knowledge gaps identified and link them to your paper goals. Please reason both the novelty and the relevance of your paper goals.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the novelty and goals of this paper were explained in the revised text. Please see the introduction section

Before proceeding to describe your experiment, materials and actions, please describe your scientific hypothesis, concepts and the relevant reasoning for choosing the particular modelling approach. This should be accompanied by an overall description of the followed procedure. A block diagram of the procedure would be also very useful.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the rationale for the study was outlined in the revised text and a flow diagram of this study to describe was added . Please see figure 1 and the introduction section.

If this is an experimental study, I think experimental data should be shown in the corresponding Figure as well as fitting model. How many runs does the experimental procedure consist of ?

Thank you. In the revised manuscript the figures report the measured experimental data. When applicable regression analysis is used to report the model for the best fit curve.

Page 3 line 109: Please modify the form in table 2.

As recommended by the Reviewer, Table 2 was modified accordingly.

Page 5 line 158: There are too many pictures, it is recommended to delete Figures 2 to 4, because they are all routine experiments.

As recommended by the Reviewer, Figures 2 to 4 were deleted and figures were renumbered.

Pearson's correlation analysis (parametric test, based of data with normal distributions for both Y and X variables) is mentioned in the Methods, but it is not mentioned in the results (text/figure/tables), and there is no evidence that it was used in any part of the analysis or paper.

Thank you. The revised text does not refer to the Pearson correlation.

To make the conclusion section more clear, authors are highly encouraged to include the point-by-point findings of this article. The current conclusion is written very wide and it is not easy to maintain the key findings.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the conclusion section was written in concise point format reporting the main findings.

In the table heading, specify the statistics and sample sizes used to report the data.

The text describes that three replicates were tested and averages have been reported. The results in this paper have been reported mostly in Figure format

Reviewer 2 Report

Suggestion to remove word 'Sustainable' from title as no work done on it

English to check

Pls use term RCPT, not RCIP

Figure 4: given wrong phot for RCPT

Author Response

Suggestion to remove word 'Sustainable' from title as no work done on it

As recommended by the Reviewer, the title was changed and the word 'Sustainable' was removed.

English to check

As recommended by the Reviewer, English was thoroughly checked.

Pls use term RCPT, not RCIP

Thank you for noting the typo. As recommended by the Reviewer, the term RCIP was changed as RCPT as follows;

Figure 4: given wrong phot for RCPT

The Reviewer is right, however as recommended by another Reviewer, the photos of the test setups were deleted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with the use of limestone powder and fly-ash as partial replacement of sand and cement to improve its durability. The reviewer finds the manuscript to be well constructed and well written. There are some minor changes that needs to be incorporated before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

· Line 63 – Rephrase the sentence

· Table 1 – The percentages numbers must be given in decimals instead of ‘comma’.

· The mechanical properties have been tested in 28 days and 90 days. But according to the codal procedures, the testing needs to be conducted for 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. Then explain why has the 7 days tests have been ignored.

· The units in the manuscript have to be corrected. For example, mm3 has to be written as mm³.

· In figure 6, decimal points have to be used instead of ‘comma’.

· Line 281 – ‘Increasing the porosity” correction has to be made.

· Section 3.5 – use decimal. Rather through out the manuscript rectify this. Replace ‘comma’ with decimal point.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Line 63 – Rephrase the sentence

Thank you. The sentence was corrected and rephrased.

Table 1 – The percentages numbers must be given in decimals instead of ‘comma’.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the percentages numbers were given in decimals instead of comma.

The mechanical properties have been tested in 28 days and 90 days. But according to the codal procedures, the testing needs to be conducted for 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. Then explain why has the 7 days tests have been ignored.

Thank you for this observation. Generally in structural design, the 28-days strength is prescribed. With the growing interest in low carbon binder alternatives, there is growing interest to specify the 90 days srength instead on the 28 days to allow the use of sustainable materials. The 7-day strength is of interest for example for formwork removal. In many other research sudies that do not focus on early age behavior, this value has been omitted but can be revisited in the future if needed.

The units in the manuscript have to be corrected. For example, mm3 has to be written as mm³.

Thank you very much for noting those typo errors. As recommended by the Reviewer, the units were corrected.

In figure 6, decimal points have to be used instead of ‘comma’.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the decimal points were used instead of comma in Figure 6.

Line 281 – ‘Increasing the porosity” correction has to be made.

The Reviewer is right. The sentence was corrected.

Section 3.5 – use decimal. Rather through out the manuscript rectify this. Replace ‘comma’ with decimal point.

As recommended by the Reviewer, the commas were replaced with decimal point in Section 3.5.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The content of the article has been revised according to the comments