Development of Ultra-High-Performance Silica Fume-Based Mortar Incorporating Graphene Nanoplatelets for 3-Dimensional Concrete Printing Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract: The research mechanism is not in-depth, and the characterization analysis is not comprehensive. It is recommended to improve the conclusion. The logic is confusing and the main conclusion is not clear.

 

The keywords are not comprehensive and need to be modified.

 

In the introduction section, there is a lack of logical relationship between the purpose of the study and the introduction of each paragraph, which needs to be revisited，for example, line 76-85.

 

Introduction:Line81-84, For the introduction of cement-based materials, references from the last 2-3 years need to be cited，please use the latest reference:

(, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104880)

 

The introduction in the background part is not comprehensive, and it is necessary to focus on the importance of 3DCP, such as the dual-carbon strategy, making sustainable building materials, etc.; you can refer to the literature. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105071.

 

Line62-63, need to introduce research work in detail.

 

Regarding the mechanical performance, error bars need to be provided.

The analysis of the mechanism part is not deep enough and needs to be revised.

 

 

SEM does not show that the pore structure is improved and the degree of hydration is increased. It is recommended to supplement MIP and XRD, TG analysis or re-analyze SEM.

Major revision

Author Response

Thank you for your response to improve the quality of the paper, please refer to the attached documents as per comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled “Development of Ultra-High Performance Silica Fume-based Mortar Incorporating Graphene Nanoplatelets for 3D Concrete Printing Application” is a good research paper to be published in the Buildings journal, however, many changes are required to be done prior to publication.

 

Abstract

 The abstract is weak, it is required to show some results at the end of the abstract paragraph.

 

Introduction

The first paragraph is just a repeat of the other’s paper, there are many papers in a similar way and mention the same words. In the last sentence 51-52 this sentence is incorrect or supports your state with evidence.

The high flexural and tensile strength cannot achieve from concrete strength, therefore, we still need steel reinforcement. It should also consider fibre reinforcement too.

 

The second paragraph, it is just shows results, authors should interpret them and then discuss them. It has also missed many other works such as “Effects of deposition velocity in the presence/absence of E6-glass fibre on extrusion-based 3D printed mortar”, authors should discuss all perspectives in terms of increasing efficiency of the concrete in terms of flexural and bending by fiber and without them.

The last paragraph also needs to be amended and fix many problems in the paper. Please determine all information related to that to be required to be done, is the RSM only enough for finding the optimum content of graphene?

 

 

Experimental and theoretical program Set up

The first thing is materials preparation but I cannot see any preparation, authors talks on the morophology of materials. The authors could not be able to disuss on all information in the paper and it should discuss on mix proportion and table of ingredients should be provided first.

Figure 2 what is benefit of the undersize of silica fume please mention it.

 

Table in mix proportion should show in the beginning of this section, and please superscript the m3.

Figure 4 why only the flow table has choosen for the workability, there are many more.

Why authors use ASTM instead all other codes like ACI, BS or EN?

The table sequence is not right on page 7 shows Table suppose to be Table 3 but it shows Table 1, please fix it. However, this table is confusing why curing duration with graphene and silica fume, is not the right way to present your variables.

 

The authors missed testing for setting time, which is the most important test in 3DP concrete.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 should show the standard deviation of each bar.

Figure 10 is not clear why presenting all three compressive in this way, it is just confusing.

 

Conclusion

 

It is written well, but it can be improved just show the outcomes in the paper, do not jump into new idea. 

It is required an extensive revision in terms of English and scientific terminology. 

 

Author Response

The authors appreciate the comment to improve the quality of the paper, please refer to the attached for the response to the comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author's reply is very sloppy, and has not been carefully revised; the abstract, the cited references, XRD,TG and the conclusions have not been effectively improved, and the reviewer suggested a major revision.

Abstract: The research mechanism is not in-depth, and the characterization analysis is not comprehensive. It is recommended to improve the conclusion. The logic is confusing and the main conclusion is not clear.

 

The keywords are not comprehensive and need to be modified.

 

In the introduction section, there is a lack of logical relationship between the purpose of the study and the introduction of each paragraph, which needs to be revisited，for example, line 76-85.

 

Introduction:Line81-84, For the introduction of cement-based materials, references from the last 2-3 years need to be cited，please use the latest reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104880

 

The introduction in the background part is not comprehensive, and it is necessary to focus on the importance of 3DCP, such as the dual-carbon strategy, making sustainable building materials, etc.; you can refer to the literature. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105071.

 

Line62-63, need to introduce research work in detail.

 

Regarding the mechanical performance, error bars need to be provided.

The analysis of the mechanism part is not deep enough and needs to be revised.

 

 

SEM does not show that the pore structure is improved and the degree of hydration is increased. It is recommended to supplement MIP and XRD, TG analysis or re-analyze SEM.

Major revision

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file for the response to the reviewers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the paper looks better than the previous version, still, some amendment is required to be done in terms of grammar check. 

Some minor are required to be done in the paper. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file for the response to reviewers.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has revised the main questions the reviewers raised, and the article's quality has been dramatically improved. Still, the introduction needs to be elaborated in more detail. Why is this research work carried out? It is suggested to add two paragraphs.

The introduction in the background part is not comprehensive, and it is necessary to focus on the importance of 3DCP, what is the role of developing 3DPC, such as the dual-carbon strategy, making sustainable building materials, Labor saving, low carbon and environmental protection，etc.; you can cite the literature. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105071.

Why add nanomaterials, it is necessary to add the role of nanomaterials, which needs to be elaborated, CNTs [2], graphene, calcium carbonate, GO, and then introduce why graphene is used.

[2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137843

 

Nanomaterials are so expensive, can they be practically applied on a large scale?

minor revision

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments. We do appreciate the reviewer effort. Please do refer to the attached document for our response to your comments

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Accept