A New Method for Proportioning Sustainable, Economic, and Resilient Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 118: Is Figure 2 your own work or someone else’s?

Line 132-134: There is a big gap in CMC and yet there is no effect (good or bad) on flexural strength? Kindly confirm.

Line 135-136: CMCs should influence (either positively or negatively), Claiming that it has no effect seems to be a bit exaggeration. Kindly comment. I understand what you want to say. But the structure of the sentence can be changed.

Line 153: There are many areas, and they are frequently encountered, where good quality aggregates are not locally available. It does not mean that it is seldom.

Table 1: Kindly review the composition of OPC. How come it has only 3.3% lime and 63.2% Alumina. Also, change the units “um” to micrometer.

Line 212: Which test was used for examining the pozzolanic reactivity?

Table 2: Types are designated as shape. The nature of only one gravel is given i.e. Basalt!!!

Table 3: This Table will be confusing to the readers. The configuration of columns and rows is confusing. It should be made a bit simple.

Figure 3: Kindly elaborate F/C as Fine to Coarse …..

Line 315: Note here that RL of the SCMs can influence the slump of concrete. However, in this research, there is no significant effect of OFA RL on the slump. These are two contradictory statements!!!

Table 6: Kindly mention that OFA RL and PV/AV are in %age. Also elaborate the “Estimate” column. What is “Sulfate content” in this Table?

Table 8: What is “Reactivity”? It does not appear anywhere else. No units for “PV/AV” are given.

Lines 352-353: Is it “. This procedure is based on the aggregate voids and the paste volume required to achieve some predefined workability.” Is it volume or ratio? Because, in the earlier discussion, you always mentioned the ratio.

Lines 368-369: If the approach is SER, then always write, sustainability, economy, and resiliency in the same order.

Lines 382-385: What is the basis of your conclusion that this procedure is equally applicable to any SCM other than OFA?

Lines 427-429: Is there any limit on increase in paste volume beyond AV_min?

Lines 464-467: Is there any reference to equation (8) and equation (12)?

Equation (13): Is F/C_opt a volume ratio or a weight ratio?

Lines 514-517: Are the increments of 0.02 in w/cm experimentally checked?

Line 561: Correct the spellings of also.

Lines 562-563: How to use this model, if a binary or ternary mixture of SCM is used?

Did you prepare trial mixes and perform strength and resistivity tests on the prepared samples?

Line 619: Show MLR in the abbreviations list.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear the authors,

1. What is the exact purpose of this paper? The objective of this paper is not unclear. It should be defined accurately and included on the abstract and introduction. For the objective of this paper, is carbon footprint important? This overall paper does not clearly state whether carbon footprint is important or not.

2. This paper is unclear and complex. This paper is difficult to understand due to the complicated flow of research. In the Introduction, the flow of the study should be added as a figure, and explanation is required. In accordance with the flow of this study, overall revisions should be made systematically and logically.

3. The introduction of this paper should be rewritten by dividing it into introduction and literature review chapter.

4. The authors should show the Multiple linear regression model equations.

5. Why are the variables in Tables 6 and 7 different? Please explain the reason on this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Whole manuscript should be rewritten in order to upgrade it to cope with the international academic standard.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

By the author of the article "A New Method for Proportioning Sustainable, Economic, And Resilient Concrete", I would like to present this summary evaluation. I am very pleased to be able to sincerely congratulate the authors on the excellent quality of their scientific contribution. I sincerely thank the authors for the opportunity to expand my territorially limited knowledge and familiarize themselves with the new findings presented in the the reviewed article. I keep my fingers crossed for publishers in sustainable improvement of their very useful magazine, even for my scientific focus of holistic perception of sustainable pavement design, construction, management, recycling or decomposition.  Based on my long-term research and transfer profile in the field of holistic perception of the issues of building structures, I consider the evaluated scientific article to be extremely topical and fully convergent with the following author's research and educational premise. Constructions should be designed, built, managed, maintained, recycled (decomposed) at a reasonable price, in reasonable quality, respecting the relevant requirements of users, residents in their surroundings and sustainable development principles integrating the principles of saving non-renewable resources, circular economy and reducing the carbon footprint in civil engineering.

Personally, I consider the article under review to be a valuable contribution to reducing the carbon footprint in sustainable concrete constructions. Kibert (1994) laid down the foundation for Sustainable construction (SC) practice, and established SC around resource minimization and reuse, use of renewable and recyclable resources, and minimizing carbon footprint. Vanegas and Pearce (2000) presented SC based on resource depletion and degradation, impact on built environment and human health, and Pulaski (2004) presented a comprehensive approach towards sustainability in construction operation.

In conclusion, I would like to abstract the presented facts into repeated thank and congratulations to the authors as well as the publisher of inspirational "young" scientific journal Construction Materials.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf