Thermal Conductivity of Coconut Shell-Incorporated Concrete: A Systematic Assessment via Theory and Experiment
, Mohd Haziman Wan Ibrahim 1 and Ghasan Fahim Huseien 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is interesting but it need major revision. Some advices are as follow,
1.Abstract and test
(1) It is suggested to change the "energy consumption" in the keyword to "concrete density".
(2) It is recommended to do a comparison of 600μm coconut shell powder and common materials on the market. Can 600μm coconut shell powder replace sand as fine aggregate?
2. Introduction to basic theory and algorithm
(1) Equations (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), and (16) lack the necessary explanation.
(2) In Table 1, four sets of identical experiments are listed for the "Centre point".
3. Format problems
(1) In Figure 4, the explanation of the abbreviations T, A, C and G is not written properly, and there are spaces between letters.
(2) The horizontal axis markers are missing in Figure 6.
(3) In Figure 8, the d0, d1 and c0 are not written properly.
(4) It is suggested that the value of 7d appear in Figure 9. And the R2 = 0.99 in Figure (d) lacks accuracy.
4.Innovative summary:
(1) The Artificial neural network (ANN), gene expression programming (GEP) and response surface method (RSM) are used to optimize and estimate the thermal conductivity of coconut shell (CA) instead of fine aggregate concrete, so the analysis methods are novel. Coconut shell is selected to replace fine aggregate, it is taking full account of environmental issues.
(2) The central composite design method (CCD-RSM) is used for experimental grouping.
Author Response
Reviewer' comments is greatly appreciated, attached please find the authors response to comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript title: Thermal Conductivity of Concrete Incorporating Coconut Shell as The
Replacement of Fine Aggregate: Systematic Assessment
Manuscript ID: sustainability 2024762
Comments:
I find that this is an interesting and considerable comprehensive work on using coconut shell as a filler to replace fine aggregate. A. M. Mhaya et al have attempted to study the thermal conductivity of concrete with the incorporation of coconut shell as filler, via simulation and experimental verification. The authors used artificial neural network (ANN), gene expression programming (GEP) and response surface methodology (RSM) to optimise and estimate the thermal conductivity of concrete incorporating coconut shell as the replacement of fine aggregate. Several experimental tests were also conducted in verifying the simulated results. Although the work is interesting, however, I find that some points needed to be addressed to improve the manuscript further. This work is suitable to be published in Sustainability journal. In my opinion, this work can be accepted for publication after the following minor corrections are made.
1. Title: I suggest some amendments to the title. Please consider “Thermal Conductivity of Concrete Incorporating Coconut Shell as Replacement of Fine Aggregate: A Systematic Assessment”. There is a sudden lower-case letter of “f” in “fine”, which supposed to be “Fine” for consistency.
2. Abstract: The abstract should be rephrased to engage more the attention of the reader, there is currently no overall summarizing or concluding remark.
3. Novelty and significance of manuscript: The authors have highlighted the novelty and the significance of manuscript to demonstrate the worthiness of publishing this manuscript in the last paragraph of the introduction part. However, please include “to the best of the authors’ knowledge” as a statement in the last paragraph of the introduction, avoid putting it in bracket. Also, the English / grammar / language should be corrected, such as authors’ not author’s since more than one author here for this manuscript.
4. Some figures are not clear, such as Figure 2 (a), Figure 3 (b), Figure 8, and Figure 9 (d). Figure 9 (d) was not explain in the caption. Please furnish the explanation in the caption in Figure 9 (d).
5. English problem: I suggest the authors to check the English language by native English speakers.
Author Response
Reviewer' comments is highly appreciated, attached please find authors response to comments.
REPONSES TO REVIEWERS (#2)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2024762
Title: Thermal Conductivity of Coconut Shell-Incorporated Concrete: A Systematic Assessment via Theory and experiment.
Reviewer’ comments are greatly appreciated.
Comment #1-1: I find that this is an interesting and considerable comprehensive work on using coconut shell as a filler to replace fine aggregate. A. M. Mhaya et al have attempted to study the thermal conductivity of concrete with the incorporation of coconut shell as filler, via simulation and experimental verification. The authors used artificial neural network (ANN), gene expression programming (GEP) and response surface methodology (RSM) to optimise and estimate the thermal conductivity of concrete incorporating coconut shell as the replacement of fine aggregate. Several experimental tests were also conducted in verifying the simulated results. Although the work is interesting, however, I find that some points needed to be addressed to improve the manuscript further. This work is suitable to be published in Sustainability journal. In my opinion, this work can be accepted for publication after the following minor corrections are made.
Title: I suggest some amendments to the title. Please consider “Thermal Conductivity of Concrete Incorporating Coconut Shell as Replacement of Fine Aggregate: A Systematic Assessment”. There is a sudden lower-case letter of “f” in “fine”, which supposed to be “Fine” for consistency.
Response #1-1: Revised as commented by the reviewer. Please see the updated title (Thermal Conductivity of Coconut Shell-Incorporated Concrete: A Systematic Assessment via Theory and experiment), page 1.
Comment #1-2: Abstract; the abstract should be rephrased to engage more the attention of the reader, there is currently no overall summarizing or concluding remark.
Response #1-2: Revised as commented by the reviewer, please the updated abstract, page 1.
Comment #1-3: Novelty and significance of manuscript: The authors have highlighted the novelty and the significance of manuscript to demonstrate the worthiness of publishing this manuscript in the last paragraph of the introduction part. However, please include “to the best of the authors’ knowledge” as a statement in the last paragraph of the introduction, avoid putting it in bracket. Also, the English / grammar / language should be corrected, such as authors’ not author’s since more than one author here for this manuscript.
Response #1-3: Reviewer’ comments is greatly appreciated; we have amended this paragraph. Please see last paragraph, introduction section, page 2-3.
Comment #1-4: Some figures are not clear, such as Figure 2 (a), Figure 3 (b), Figure 8, and Figure 9 (d). Figure 9 (d) was not explain in the caption. Please furnish the explanation in the caption in Figure 9 (d).
Response #1-4: As per reviewer’ comments, we have amended Figs. 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9. Please see revised figures, page 6, 7, 12, 14 16, respectively. For Figure 9d, it is just linear regression between density and k-value.
Comment #1-5: English problem; I suggest the authors to check the English language by native English speakers.
Response #1-5: English language of manuscript is modified. Please see revised version, page 1-22.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscritp was well structured and prepared. While, the conclusion need to be reconsidered to show the test results more numerically and meaningful.
By the way, the whole manuscript need to be double cheched for typoes. For example, in Author contribution, the author's name should be in capital letters
Author Response
Reviewer' comments are greatly appreciated. Attached please find the authors response to comments.
REPONSES TO REVIEWERS (#3)
Manuscript ID: sustainability-2024762
Title: Thermal Conductivity of Coconut Shell-Incorporated Concrete: A Systematic Assessment via Theory and experiment.
Reviewer’ comments are greatly appreciated.
Comment #1-1: The manuscritp was well structured and prepared. While, the conclusion need to be reconsidered to show the test results more numerically and meaningful.
Response #1-1: Thanks for the comment. Conclusion was revised as commented by the reviewer. Please see section 4, page 18-19.
Comment #1-2: By the way, the whole manuscript need to be double cheched for typoes. For example, in Author contribution, the author's name should be in capital letters.
Response #1-2: English language of manuscript is corrected, please see revised version, page 1-22.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
