Rheological and Strength Behavior of Binary Blended SCC Replacing Partial Fine Aggregate with Plastic E-Waste as High Impact Polystyrene
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should take into account the following suggestions (comments to authors):
* author should improve tables and figures. As an example Fig 1 is a capture from an excel file in which window labes can still be seen (all figures and tables should be improved)
* Self -Compacting concrete is a wide used special concrete which is being used in a wide range of different uses. Authors should include some references of the singular experiences using SCC to highlight the fact that there is room and market to use this innovation (i.e Rodríguez, G.et al., 2017: Self-compacting concrete in the Temple of Sagrada Familia. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 23(3), 04017005.)
* authors should better explain the criteria used to select the concrete mixtures
* authors should better support the statements made in the manuscript either with their results or refences
* Blanco, A.,et al. (2014). in their paper Methodology for the design of controlled low-strength materials. Application to the backfill of narrow trenches. Construction and Building Materials, 72, 23-30. use graph to analyse the influence of water to solid ratio (w/s) on solid concentration and void ratio, could the authors present similar graph with water to binder???
* Review English
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and meticulous review of the paper.
As per the reviewer suggestions, all figures and tables are improved and Figure 1 is modified. SCC design mix criteria and all the content in manuscript are clearly explained with the supporting results and references. Suggested data and graph pattern from the reputed journals are also considered for modification of manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and the subject is worthy of investigation. Scientific literture is nowadays reach of paper about experimental programs on concrete made with recycled costituents. Nevertheless, the paper does not report anadeguate state-of-the art. Specifically, in the introduction section it states: "Numerous studies, ....several research...." but the related state-of-the-art and references provided are not sufficient. Reference section is not adeguateand It is limited to few paper by the same authors (Ch. Bala Rama Krishna, J. Guru Jawahar, Jagadeesh P.
The quality of English is good, but some mistakes and typos are disseminate within the paper (for example consider to replace tonns to tonnes).
This reviewer suggest major revision before its pubblication with the aim to improve the quality of the paper. In the following are listed a series of critical aspects that should be assessed:
1) Introduction states "Self-compacting concrete is a High-performance concrete"...: it is not true. Self-compacting concrete can also have low strength and so on.
2) paper [3-4-5] are not cited within the text.
3) Fig. 1 is not adeguate: the text is too small and it shows "activate windows"
4) more pictures about the experimental tests should be added.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and meticulous review of the paper.
Considering all the valuable suggestions of the reviewers, necessary modifications are done. Grammatical mistakes in this manuscript are rectified and English is improved to the best of my knowledge. Figure 1 is modified and Introduction section is re-written for the better state-of-the-art. All the supporting references are properly cited.
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents an investigation of the effect of flay ash and plastic waste (polystyrene) on fresh properties and mechanical properties of SCC. Though it is readable, this manuscript looks like a report rather than a journal paper. The authors are suggested to reconsider the following issues before publication:
Introduction must be rewritten. State of the art of SCC using plastic waste was not properly shown. No logic when introducing the reasons of using fly ash and plastic waste in SCC. Proper citation is needed. Other minor issues in Introduction:
e-waste = High impact polystyrene (HIPS)? Clear definition is needed.
Lines 37-38: What do you mean?
Line 29: fly ash is not always considered as a waste.
Lines 42-43: How can fly ash ensure the resistance to chemical degradation? Citation?
Line 48: GST?
Line 51: pozzolannic CSH?
Line 52: what is the relevance of introduction GGBS in this context?
Line 63: citation
If plastic waste is used, the properties of SCC related to fire and high temperature conditions should be extensively discussed.
Lines 82-84: is this from literature? Citation, if not, then it’s not a place to show these data.
Experiment: how can you consider this work as an development SCC recipe while keeping w/b ratio constant?
Table 2: not properly presented
Results: results without scientific discussion would significantly reduce the quality of this manuscript .
Fig. 6: not need to show
Conclusion 6: how can you prove the low cost of your SCC, did you calculate the cost and consider long-term performance of this SCC?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and meticulous review of the paper.
As per the reviewer suggestions, Introduction and Conclusions sections in the manuscript are modified. Title of the manuscript also modified appropriately for better clarity.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Still some editing errors
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Considering all the suggestions of the reviewers, the necessary modifications in the manuscript are done. Grammatical mistakes in this manuscript are rectified and English is improved to the best of my knowledge.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved and now, in this reviewer's opinion, it can be accepted for pubblication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Considering all the valuable suggestions of the reviewers, necessary modifications are done. SCC design mix criteria and all the content in the manuscript are clearly explained with the supporting results and references.
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction: In general it’s better than previous version but now it becomes too broad and lost its focus. The authors are suggested concentrating on the issues dealing within this study. The paragraph to introduce the objectives of this study needs to be extended (lines 123-125).
Line 34: bleahing à leaching; other typos should be checked.
Figures: quality should be improved, for example, there are grids in Gif. 5, but not in Fig. 6. It should be consistent.
More critical discussion on results should be done, for example, correlation graph between compressive and split tensile strength is shown in Fig. 13 without any discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
As per the reviewer suggestions, all figures and tables are improved and Figure 1 is modified. SCC design mix criteria and all the content in manuscript are clearly explained with the supporting results and references. Suggested data and graph pattern are also considered for modification of the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions.
