Novel Sustainable Masonry from Ancient Construction Techniques by Reusing Waste Modern Tiles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

The paper is promising and you proposed 2 new methods to test the wall samples. I suggest the following amendment to be done in the paper.

1. Add a bit more about the method in the abstract as it is not clear what method you are adopting in the abstract. 

2. Better add the values in the last 2 lines of the abstract rather than just giving open statements. 

3. Literature review in the introduction is week. It is not clear what are you trying to express. make a logical flow. 

4. What are the previous research on similar research area? What they did and how your methods are different. It is not enough to make general statements. 

5. The gap is not scientifically supported. 

6. Add a table of summary and share that what is the existing body of knowledge in this area and where your study is different?

7. Add a flow chart about the research method and what is the mortar ratio and why it is chosen like it. Add the rationale 

8. Separate the discussion section and conclusion. 

9. what are the future recommendations and limitations of the methods? 

10. The validation of both suggested approaches is not robust.  

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 ·       kN instead of KN in line 206!

·       Please insert some figures for mortars cube specimens.

·       Explanations should be added to the text of the manuscript regarding the justification and utilization of the construction of these heavy and thick walls in today's construction technology!

·       The lines 167-170 is similar with lines 208-210!

·       In Table2, MPa instead of Mpa!

·       How is the wall behavior predicted against cyclic loading?

·       The references must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 

Thanks for the corrections and i have the following observations;

1. what is the difference between methods and technique. you mentioned that you proposed technique so i am not clear on this matter. 

2. there should be extra effort must be utilized on the comments 3,4, 5 and 7. They must be improved. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf