Next Article in Journal
Understanding Barriers in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Allocation Negotiations on Fishing Opportunities
Next Article in Special Issue
Recent Developments in the Energy Harvesting Systems from Road Infrastructures
Previous Article in Journal
What is a Green Economy? Review of National-Level Green Economy Policies in Cambodia and Lao PDR
Previous Article in Special Issue
Environmental Potentials of Asphalt Materials Applied to Urban Roads: Case Study of the City of Münster
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Use of Recycled Aggregates Made from Construction and Demolition Waste in Sustainable Road Base Layers

Sustainability 2020, 12(16), 6663; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166663
by Evelio Teijón-López-Zuazo 1,*, Ángel Vega-Zamanillo 2, Miguel Ángel Calzada-Pérez 2 and Ángel Robles-Miguel 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2020, 12(16), 6663; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166663
Submission received: 2 July 2020 / Revised: 2 August 2020 / Accepted: 15 August 2020 / Published: 18 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smart Solutions for Sustainable Transport Infrastructure)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research team evaluated the use of recycled aggregates in road infrastructure. They recommended the use with limitations. This is a good work towards the sustainability of a better planet.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attention.

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that the work is worthy to be published but you need to let the reader have more information about materials themselves and results’ variability, namely for:

  • Origin of materials and type of quality control;
  • Number of specimens collected and tested by each characterization and result;
  • Variability of results: are the results shown an average of what? Which was the dispersion? Was the dispersion more or less than the expected one for the registered for natural aggregates?

You also should underline in the conclusions the effect of variability and what should be done in addition, to allow the use of the material in practice (testing other compositions for other origins? Test sections to evaluate the construction difficulties and the performance of the material used?...).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attention. We are pleased to envy the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study is an interesting topic for practical use in the field. 

There should be a rational connection between the introduction including literature and the other parts in terms of occurred improvements on using waste materials on the road. Please add more words describing the edge of research works and mentioning their advantages and disadvantages compared with your solution.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your attention. I am pleased to envy the revised manuscript.

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

In the Reviewer´s opinion the manuscript should be rejected. From a technical and scientific point of view the manuscript is very weak and needs significant improvements to be considered for publication in a scientific Journal. The experimental study is basic and has not been clearly presented.

Title: The title of the manuscript is too long and should be made clearer.

Abstract:

Abstract should be rewritten. The abstract should be clear, presenting the novelty of the study and summarizing the main findings.

The first sentence of the Abstract needs a reference.

The meaning of “artificial aggregates” is distinct from “recycled aggregate”.

The designation “exclusive crushing of structural concrete waste in selective demolitions” corresponds to “recycled concrete aggregates” (RCA). The authors must use the well-known term. The “exclusive crushing of structural concrete waste in selective demolitions” is how the RCA was obtained.

Keywords: Revise the keywords. “structural concrete”???; “graded aggregate”???

Introduction:

The target defined by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC of 70% by weight in 2020 for CDW recycling needs a different framework since we are already in 2020. Besides, “70% by weight in 2020” is not “an increase” is a target.

The introductory section should be reorganized and written according to what is expected from a scientific publication. A clear state-of-art on previous studies should be presented and not “mixed” with Spanish regulations.

Materials and Methods: This section should present the materials used in the study and the methods followed to their characterization (not the definition of structural concrete nor the aim of the study).

Results and discussion: The results must be clearly presented and discussed.

Technical English writing must be carefully and thoroughly revised throughout the manuscript.

See additional comments in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is an experimental work on the use of Demolition Waste from Structural Concrete for road infrastructures. 

The paper is very poorly written. It is really hard to follow the objectives and the storyline of the paper. The presentations of the results also need improvement. Also, the research does not provide any contribution. The authors only worked on the gradation.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of this paper is to study the use of recycled aggregates made from construction and demolition waste from structural concrete such as graded aggregate and cement soil in suistainable road infrastructures base Layers. The title is too long, modified the title. The introduction could be improved with reading the articles: “An empathetic added sustainability index (EASI) for cementitious based construction materials” Journal of Cleaner Production, 220 (2019), 475-482.

The comments have been included in the pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The research topic is interesting.

The scientific approach is basically of the experimental type. The main tests performed are significant. However the scientific approach used for the cement based materials, namely CSRConc is not properly explained and discussed. At page 8, Line 200 it is written that specimens have been made with 3% of cement. It is not explained at all how this cement percentage has been determined. It is a cement content used on the basis of previuos literature papers? It is a value determined on the basis of an experimental optimization procedure? In this sense, the authors shoud clarify which approach has been used. It is also suggested to the authors to have a look and to comment in their paper the following additional references that can provide insights on the optimization procedure of cement based mixtures for road infrastructures:

1) Pasetto, M., Baldo, N. (2016) Recycling of waste aggregate in cement bound mixtures for road pavement bases and sub-bases, Construction and Building Materials 108, pp. 112-118

2) Pasetto, M., Baldo, N. (2015) Experimental analysis of hydraulically bound mixtures made with waste foundry sand and steel slag, Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions 48(8), pp. 2489-2503

The main results are quite interesting and quite properly discussed.

 

Back to TopTop