The Influence of Chemical Activators on the Hydration Behavior and Technical Properties of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements Blended with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slags
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study investigated the effect of two chemical activators on different properties of CSA or CSA-Slag blended cement binder. The topic is straightforward, the experimental design is appropriate. The conclusions can be supported by the results. However, the presentation of some results need improvement.
- Don’t know if it is because of the typeset/version issues, most figures in the manuscript are a bit washed out. Please double check all figures meet the journal standard. In addition, some of the fonts in the figures are not consistent and it feels distorted. Please fix.
- Figure 1. Missing individual labels (“a” and “b”).
- Figure 3. R-BI has a final set of 20.5 mins. It is inappropriate to set the highest label of Y-axis to “20”. It should be 22.
- Figure 4 is terrible. Not a good view for a pair of sour eyes. It is bond to have a better way to present these deformation curves.
- Figure 5. The text below X-axis. Should it be “Curing period, days”? Or what do you mean by “hours/days”.
- Figure 6. Left corner figure was cut off.
- Figure 7. Figure 7b, 7d, and 7e are cut off.
- Figure 8. The font size is not consistent with other futures.
- Figure 9. Figures are cut off. The text feels disfigured. Font is not consistent.
- Figure 8 and Figure 11. The lines connecting the dots are inappropriate. If we don’t or can’t know the nature of the trend for sure, only dots should do just fine. Or straight lines are preferred over curved lines (there is no way to know their nature. polynomial? Hyperbolic? Just no way).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we sincerely appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions given. All the figures have been rearranged according to these comments. Thank you again for the time spent for the revision of our paper.
Sincerely,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents the influence of chemical activators on the hydration behavior and technical properties of CSA blended with GGBFS. The investigation of the effect of various activators on cement performances is very interesting and important from both academic and industrial points of view. However:
1/ The work is written in an incomprehensible and lengthy manner, and therefore it is difficult to understand and connect all the parts of the work. It is recommended to link the various results provided and not explain results separately, such as the relationship between strengths given and the setting times results.
2/Why were these activators were chosen and not others?
3/ Most tables and figures describe the results obtained and not a scientific, chemical, or physical explanation.
4/ No explanation can were given for the relationship between the chemical and physical properties of the materials and the cement results.
The topic of the research is very interesting academically and industrially. It is recommended to reorganize the article, write the data clearly and explain scientifically the results obtained.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we sincerely appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions given. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to these comments. Below, we address the questions raised. Thank you again for the time spent for the revision of our paper.
Sincerely,
The authors
The whole paper has been deeply rearranged according the suggestions of the Reviewer. Moreover, the manuscript has, once again, been reviewed by a mother tongue and typing errors have been eradicated. We are confident that now the paper is more comprehensible and more pleasant to read. Some additional explanations have been added to the results.
Among the chemical activators experienced in the past for stimulating the reactivity of ground granulated blast furnace slags in traditional binders, the Authors choosed NaOH and Na2CO3 just as a starting point; other activators have been studying and the related results will be reported in a new paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject paper is interesting and its purpose complies with the journal’s aim and scope.
The authors are providing some interesting results on the addition of two chemical activators on ggbfs CSA cement combinations. Very interestingly, late age results are also presented (strength at 180 days).
Some improvements are suggested.
In terms of language usage, the manuscript is very well written.
Overall, minor revision is postulated.
More specifically:
Line 57: rephrase: energy for required the cement milling. With energy required for cement milling
Line 61: wrong use of term “diluted” : You can try: “CSA cements can be blended by substituting a fraction of Portland cement with SCMs”
Line 114: “…stored in a desiccator containing soda lime and silica gel to ensure hydration arrest and protection against carbonation” Please state the protocol you followed (time for each step)
Also what is the reason behind the use of soda lime? A number of scientists arrest hydration with alcohols:
https://doi.org/10.1680/adcr.13.00098
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.06.003
Line 127: how many samples/formulation were tested and what about the error – standard deviation?
Please show the error bar in figure 5.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we sincerely appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions given. The manuscript has been carefully revised according to these comments. Thank you again for the time spent for the revision of our paper.
Sincerely,
The authors
