Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The file is attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”. Your comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for improving our work.
The responds to your comments please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is devoted for interface properties of foamed ceramics and foamed concrete. The topic is generally interesting, however the paper contains a lot of unexplained places (below) and need major revisions.
In abstract “increases at first, and then decreases” it is not informative. Please list in which conditions increase and in which decrease.
Line 26 “in our country”, is not clear in which country.
Numbers should be written separately from measurements units, for examples at the line 10 it should be 410 kg/m3 not 410kg/m3.
More references and comparison with results already published in literature are needed. For example, line 97 „by the physical foaming method“.
In Fig. 2 more experimental points can be added.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”. Your comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for improving our work.
The responds to your comments please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents a series of results regarding the study on interface bonding properties of foamed ceramics and foamed.
The authors can consider the following aspects:
- The summary must be rewritten. For example, the summary should not start with the phrase “By choosing the foamed ceramic board with a density of 410kg / m3 as the panel”, this should be written below in the summary;
- Keywords should be rewritten. For example, the keyword “bonding strength” is mentioned, although other tests are performed in research;
- The introduction must be completed with other information in the field;
- The research methodology is not very clear and needs to be improved;
- A more detailed characterization of the materials is required, a presentation of the supplier is not enough;
- According to the data presented in Table 1, it results that large quantities of concrete foam have been made; it is necessary to specify how the test samples used for testing were made using these materials;
- the results presented in section 3.1 are very well known !!!!;
- It is necessary to develop section 3.2 much more because this is in fact the objective of the research. In this section it is necessary to present macroscopic and microscopic images of the samples before and after testing;
- In section 3.4, Figure 5, it is shown that the number of cycles is 16. I think it is very small, and the decrease in properties is very pronounced. This shows that this type of composite cannot be used in good conditions;
- Given the topic of the journal, I believe that a sustainability analysis should also be carried out for these materials;
- The discussion part needs to be significantly developed in order to highlight the contributions made by research in relation to other research in the field;
- the conclusions should be more concrete and include the practical applications of the results obtained;
- At the end of the conclusions, the future research directions should be specified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”. Your comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for improving our work.
The responds to your comments please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Article describes results of the research concerning on interface bonding properties of foamed ceramics and foamed concrete. In the opinion of the reviewer, this topic is interesting and important. However, the Article requires some improvements and a few clarifications before it can be published.
- What is new in the research described in the Article ? In the Introduction section there is no any information about research conducted in the past by other researchers. Described research seems to be well known and examined in the past. Moreover all used materials are commercially available – I think commercially available materials (dedicated to some applications) are well know and already tested by their manufacturers.
- Line 26: “our country” – be specific (which country ?)
- Line 83 (and many others): “cream-like interface agent” – used interface agent should be precisely described (manufacturer, product number etc.)
- Line 91: “steel mesh frame” – what is the geometry of that frame ? Why there is no information about it in subsection 2.1 ?
- How many samples of each type were investigated by the Authors ?
- Line 114: “all 914 epoxy adhesives” – Do the Authors used 914 adhesives agents ?
- Line 114-115: “pull-out and single-point loading test” – what is the procedure for these tests?
- Line 115: which epoxy resin ?
- Densities in line 129 and Table 2 are different.
- How Authors change density of the material ? It should be described.
- Foamed ceramic is a porous material so its mechanical properties depends from number and size of that porous. How the porous looks like in investigated cases (table 2) ? Some microscopic images could be added.
- Line 134: Table 2 ?
- Figure 2 – how many samples of each type are investigated ? Add standard deviation.
- Figure 4 – difference in results between plated with and without interface agent starts to grove up after 7 days. Why ? There is no information about it in the text. Add standard deviation.
- Subsection 3.4 – add figure with freeze-thaw cycle.
- In Subsection 3.2 Authors noted that, the age of the concrete have an impact on interface bonding strength. What is the age of concreate used during the research described in Subsection 3.3 and 3.4 ?
- Line 233: Authors start to write about polyurethane adhesive. Why ? In previous part of the Article Authors wrote about epoxy. Why do the authors suddenly change the research subject to which the description relates?
- Line 235: “density of 330” – in line 143 authors write “ceramic board with a density of 410kg/m3 should be selected. Why do the authors suddenly change the research subject to which the description relates?
- Section 4 should be delated. Article concerns on interface bonding properties. Moreover proposed connection structure looks like commercially used for a long time.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”. Your comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for improving our work.
The responds to your comments please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors make proper corrections according to reviewer remarks and I suggest
to publish the paper as it is.
Author Response
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors revised their manuscript according to my suggestions. Thus the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”.
Reviewer 4 Report
Article was improved in accordance to some of the previous remarks. However, it should be still improved before its publication.
Point 5: Add this information into Article. Information about mesh size is still missing.
Point 6: In the article there is no such information (“The compressive strength test of the foamed ceramic board is carried out according to ‘Light weight panels for partition wall used in building’(GB/T 23451-2009) [15], its size is 100 mm × 100 mm × 40 mm.” (lines 103-105)).
Point 7: Authors wrote “The adhesives used in the adhesive performance test are all 914 epoxy adhesives” – its looks like Authors used 914 different adhesives.
Point 11: Add this information in the text.
Point 12: Authors answer “Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked and corrected it”. What was changed in the article ? In the revised version of the article there is no any new information about porous size.
Points 14, 15, 16, 17: Authors answer “Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked and corrected it”. However there is no any change in the revised version of the Article.
Point 18: The remark was: Authors start to write about polyurethane adhesive. Why ? In previous part of the Article Authors wrote about epoxy. Why do the authors suddenly change the research subject to which the description relates?”. Authors answer: “Thank you for your suggestion”. There is no any change or explanation in the revised version of the Article.
Points 19 and 20: The same situation as in Point 18. There is no any change or explanation in the revised version of the Article.
Author Response
We thank you very much for the time and effort that you put into reviewing our manuscript “Study on Interface Bonding Properties between Foamed Ceramics and Foamed Concrete”. Your comments and suggestions are valuable and very helpful for improving our work.
The responds to your comments please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Article have been improved by the Authors. Some explanations could be described more accurately but in my opinion Article could be published.
