A Validation Study on Mechanical Properties of Foam Concrete with Coarse Aggregate Using ANN Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Review on a Validation Study on Mechanical Properties of Foam Concrete with Coarse Aggregate Using ANN Model
General comments
In this study, use ANN model to analyze cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, w/c ratio foam content those five independent variables affect C.S, T.S & F.S were dependent variables.
Currently, the use of computer technology to predict the strength of concrete is widely used, This paper has some innovative, the researchers in this paper used artificial neural network model to analyze the effect of factors such as foam on the strength of concrete, and overall fluency of the writing, However, this paper use too many words to describe current research methods, the authors should describe more clearly the models used in the article and analyze the results of the experiments, and the quality of the drawings in the article needs to be improved. What’s more, there are some errors in the article that need to be corrected.
General comment after reading: major revise.
Specific comments as follow:
Abstract
Abstract is a bit long and does not reflect the main content of the article
1 Introduction
Line 69. Please spell out C.S, T.S & F.S
2 Materials and Methodology
Line 76. Please spell out O.P.C
Line 80. Please subscript the numbers.
Figure 1. Please provide a clearer picture.
3 Research Framework
3.1 Mix Design & Mix Proportion
Table 7. what is BATCHE, which mean batches?
Is cement to foam mix ratio based on mass ratio or what else?
Why is there a 12% Foam volume batch but not 3% and 1%?
From the article there are fine and coarse aggregate, what type of aggregates are in B3?
Materials aggregate has fine and coarse aggregate, why is there only coarse aggregate in the mixture type, does it make more sense to replace coarse with aggregate?
Figure 5. Is there two W/C in input layer?
3.3.1.2 Polynomial Regression Analysis
Please provide a clearer formula picture. The clarity of the other images also needs to be improved.
4 Results & Discussion
4.1. E.D.A. Results of Experimental Work
Why is the standard variance of sand and coarse aggregate so large and are the test results scientifically valid?
The effect of foam on concrete is also significant from the data set, and further analysis can be done in the Results & Discussion and Conclusions section
Author Response
Please find the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Type of manuscript: Article Paper
Title: Validation Study on Mechanical Properties of Foam Concrete 2 with Coarse Aggregate Using ANN Model
Journal-Manuscript ID: buildings-2132796-peer-review-v1-Report
Foam concrete (F.C) was used as a filler material an alternative concrete because of conventional concrete global warming. Therefore, this subject is of interest in the context of the sustainability of construction materials. F.C. was tested for its physical and mechanical properties. From the experimental results, an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) was developed to predict the strengths of F.C. The study aims to determine the exploratory and polynomial regression analysis for the given dataset. Thus, the outcomes are fascinating and well-explained. The reviewer suggests the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.
Here are the following remarks:
1. The “Abstract” can be rephrased to be more concise.
2. The “Keywords” can be rephrased to be more concise.
3. The “Conclusions 1 & 4” can be rephrased to be more concise.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Please would you like to present more practice problems related to this study subjections.
Line 139
How to determine tensile strength ?
It is poor to explain the testing procedure and testing methods.
Figures 6 and 7 are NOT clear that please revise to certainly figures.
The explanation related to Figure 10 that is NOT clear, and please revise it.
Figure 12 and Figure 14 have same comments above mentioned for Figure 10.
Author Response
Please find the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on “Strength Enhancement Studies on Foam Concrete by Varying Percentages of Coarse Aggregate and Foam Content”
This paper studied nice mixes of foam concrete with change different cement to sand ratio and foam content. The research subject could be interesting for the readers. However, there are plenty of research has been reported in this field and the innovation of this paper has not been clearly presented, especially the scientific question has not been clearly proposed. Therefore, based on the current format, it cannot be accepted. Here is some other comments:
General Comments
1) Title: The title is not proper. The strength enhancement is not a proper term by simply adjusting the percentage and content .
2) Abstract: The statement that foam concrete can replace new sustainable materials is not right. The motivation of the manuscript should be highlighted in abstract. Too much details about the mix design and the main content of test has been ignored.
3) Keywords: conventional concrete is not suitable in this manuscript.
4) Introduction: This section should be focus on the state of the art of FC and the relationship with this manuscript other than introducing too much general background information. Line 39, ordinary Portland cement should ne Portland cement. Lines61-63, how purity of water affect the foam agents? The author should include the research gap, aims and objectives of the manuscript in introduction part.
5) Materials: Table 1 what is IS and why the authors include IS recommendation in this part. The authors should provide chemical information about the cement. Figure 1 is not proper. It is not a figure to show the process or the figure to exhibit the morphology of materials. Table 5 what is C what is F? As the author highlighted the three problems, how did the authors fix the problems? The description of all tests should be presented in this section.
6) Results: Figure 6 and Figure 7 include error bas of test.
7) Conclusion: provide research recommendations.
8) Some errors of grammar and spelling are existing, for example, “after producing cement slurry foam is added to the mixture and mixed duly”.
Reviewer 2 Report
The main concerns are:
- The experiment and the analysis of the results are extremely simple (somehow shallow):
The work is not particularly novel because it is like many previously published works on the subject. The experimental campaign is very simple, and the results are consistent with what would be expected given the materials used. The results analysis is also extremely simple (somehow shallow).
