Effect of Nanostructured Silica Additives on the Extrusion-Based 3D Concrete Printing Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Abstract should be improved. The language in Abstract section should be concise and comprehensive;

2. The introduction needs more discussion. Recent few years, 3D printing have drawn increasing attention of researchers who mainly study structures due to the advantages on processing costomized structures. The following references are recommended to discuss in the Introduction section:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjmeam.2022.100014

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108810

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2022.103026

3. Figure 4 is superfluous;

4. What is the processing and test temperatures? Does environmental temperature influences the results?

5. When the wall was builded, what is the application? The mechanical properties are recommended to be investigated in future works. Therefore, the title of the 4. Conclusions should be recplaced by the 4. Conclusions and prospects.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor: For the study to be accepted, the author (s) must respond to the following comments point by point to reach the level of a high-quality journal.

1.     The followings are my comments regarding this manuscript. The authors should briefly discuss their innovation in the abstract, which has to be improved with much more information.

2.      It is poorly written, missing the test procedure, explaining the calculations, and is disorganized. The abstract needs to be improved by highlighting this paper's key findings.The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.

Abstract :

1.     The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.

2.     Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.

3.     Nothing is mentioned in the abstract regarding the mixed proportion, experimental study, and the range of parameters used. Please revise it.

4.     Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.

5.     The “  Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests to fill  the research gap.”  It is not correct; please revise it

Introduction:

6.     The introduction section is not up to the mark. In the introduction section, you only need to connect state-of-the-art to your paper goals. Hence modify the entire section accordingly and present the specific goals/research objectives in the last part of the introduction section.

7.     The research significance has to be highlighted at the end of the introductions.

8.     The introduction is poorly organized. The authors must add more information and supported studies to the introduction since the introduction is poor and needs to be strengthened. Recent publications in the area of  rhological properties,  plastic vicosity, yield stress, and the effect of silica in the nanosize and microsize (silica fume)  have to be explained and highlighted in the introduction  to justify the study; the following references have to be considered in the study :

·       Microstructure and Chemical Characterizations with Soft Computing Models to Evaluate the Influence of Calcium Oxide and Silicon Dioxide in the Fly Ash and Cement Kiln Dust on …

·       Microstructure, chemical compositions, and soft computing models to evaluate the influence of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide on the compressive strength of cement mortar …

·       Systematic Multiscale Models to Predict the Compressive Strength of Cement Paste as a Function of Microsilica and Nanosilica Contents, Water/Cement Ratio, and Curing Ages

·       Microstructure characterizations, thermal properties, yield stress, plastic viscosity and compression strength of cement paste modified with nanosilica

·       Smart cement compressive piezoresistive, stress-strain, and strength behavior with nanosilica modification

·       Smart cement compressive piezoresistive, stress-strain, and strength behavior with nanosilica modification

Methodology:

1.     A flowchart should be provided for the work process. The flow chart of the study has to be described in the steps.

2.     Many grammatical errors need to be corrected. Several grammar errors can be observed in the paper, which is negatively affected by the paper's quality. Using "good and poor . …….." not allowed in scientific article writing? The authors must replace “good and poor” with scientific sentences. It has been used 9 times in the manuscript

3.     The frequency of the device has to be mentioned in the study. The properties of the devices used in the study, such as strain rate, machine deflection, and capacity, have to be mentioned in the methodology,

4.     The standard for all the tests must be mentioned in the study.

5.     How was the plastic viscosity measured? Which model did the authors use? This is must be explained in the study.

Results and discussion:

6.     The manuscript has to convert all shear rates to shear strain rates.

7.     Without witness lab photos, the results are not believable. The shape of the sample failures and the paths have to be provided in the study. Compressive strength failed samples have to be shown in the manuscript.

8.     The results in Fig. 11 are not repeatable? The title of the y-axis is compressive strength, not compressive stress??

Conclusion (s):

1.     Conclusions have to be in numbers.

2.      The conclusions are so poorly written. Please modify it to represent the outcomes of the study. This major deduction from this study does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.

3.     Revision of the conclusions section is much required. It is not showcasing the entire essence of the detailed work presented in the paper. Also, inculcate the author's comments on the potential of the usage of graphene and its derivative with the comparison with potential alternatives in use for the current practice. This major deduction from this study, does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have addressed all my previous questions.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and effort

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor:

The authors did not respond to some of the comments in detail I will give them another chance to the authors to respond to the following comments: 

1- The manuscript has to convert all shear rates to shear strain rates.

2- The effect of the microstructure of silica on the cementitious materials has to be added to the introduction, and the authors did not respond to this comment well. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor:

 

The authors carefully studied the reviewer's comments and revised the manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript's quality meets the journal's requirements. I suggest this manuscript be accepted and published in this journal.