Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of 3D Concrete Printing and Casting Processes for Cementitious Materials Incorporating Ground Waste Tire Rubber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper examines the use of ground waste tire rubber in concrete LCA based on two different applications; 3D printing and mold in place. This is an interesting work.  

Why two different w/c ratios were used for the two mixtures? 

Figure 4: the fonts used in the figure is too small. Enlarge the provided information in the figure. 

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review the manuscript, for comments and positive feedback. Below are the replies (in black) to the comments (in red).

1. Why two different w/c ratios were used for the two mixtures? 

1. Details about different w/c ratios used for the mixtures were added in the manuscript in lines 188-195.

2. Figure 4: the fonts used in the figure is too small. Enlarge the provided information in the figure. 

2. The graph in Figure 4 has been reconstructed by the authors from the raw data extrapolated by Simapro software to make it clearer and more readable

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript proposes a comparative study between rubberized concrete mixes obtained by 3D printing and traditional mould-casting methods. The comparison uses the so-called Empathetic Added Sustainability Index (EASI) as a performance indicator, which takes into consideration design engineering properties, durability, and sustainability issues of the developed materials and processes.

 Overall, the topic of the research is interesting and has significant engineering meanings. The reviewer can recommend it for publication in the journal of Recycling. The following comments should be considered before.

1. The title is long and ambiguous. It should be refined.

2. The novelty of the study should be highlighted in the introduction.

3. The comparison between Table 1 and Table 2 shows the difference between them. Can you explain more about this setting (the values)?

4. Some figures are not very clear, for example, Fig. 4.

5. The number of some equations is missing on Pages 10 and 11.

 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review the manuscript, for comments and positive feedback. Below are the replies (in black) to the comments (in red).

1. The title is long and ambiguous. It should be refined.

1. The title has been changed and refined in accordance with the reviewer's comment

2. The novelty of the study should be highlighted in the introduction.

2. In lines 120-127 the authors had already highlighted the novelty of the work. However, the innovative aspect of the research has been further explored and added on lines 133-137

3. The comparison between Table 1 and Table 2 shows the difference between them. Can you explain more about this setting (the values)?

3. More information about the setting of Table 1 and Table 2 were added in lines 169-173 and lines 185-195 respectively.

4. Some figures are not very clear, for example, Fig. 4.

4. The graph in Figure 4 has been reconstructed by the authors from the raw data extrapolated by Simapro software in order to make it clearer and more readable

5. The number of some equations is missing on Pages 10 and 11.

5. The numbers of equations were added accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf