Performance of Alkali-Activated Self-Compacting Concrete with Incorporation of Nanosilica and Metakaolin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• The language of the research paper requires improvements.
• Details of NS supplier shall add to the section of Materials and mix design.
• Details of mix design procedure.
• Details of SP supplier shall be add to the section of Materials and mix design.
• Providing literature about the NS and/or MK and how it is affecting the properties of geopolymer.
• Table 1: three meaningful digits for all chemical compositions are required.
• Add the reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2021.11.240

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. The revised paper was improved after editing according to your comments. The response to your comments file was attached below.

Regards...

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on “Characteristics Of Fly Ash Based Alkali Activated Self-Compacting Concrete with And Without Nanosilica and Metakaolin”

This paper investigated the effect from NS and MK in fly ash based AASC. The research subject could be interesting for the readers. However, Based on the current format, it cannot be accepted as a research/technical paper.

General Comments

• Title: The tile is too slipper and confusing, which should be further concentrated.
• Abstract: The aim is not clearly presented; the author should indicate which type of A-ASCC has been replaced. Too much experimental details are included in the abstract. The conclusion is not accurate “As a result, it is possible to conclude that the A-ASCC may be used in an ambient environment.”
• Keywords: The selection of the keywords is not accurate. Fly ash has been ignored.
• Introduction: We normally say pulverized fly ash rather than pulverized granulated blast furnace slag. We do not say AAS can replace PC but we can utilise AAS in special application. The author should introduce what is AAC before moving to SCC. “the manufacture of 1 ton of cement yields around 1 ton of CO2” is not correct which should be further updated. The author should provide the full term of FA GGBS MK where it first appears. Similar issue for other abbreviations. Explain “the molar ratio (H2O/Na2O)” in ref 48. The motivation of this paper is not clearly presented in this paper since the MK and NS has been extensively used in AAC.
• 2.1 should be separated into Materials part and sample preparation part. And Explain the reason why the author select those contents. Provide the source of the SCMs. The author should provide the final modulus for waterglass and the concentration of waterglass added into AAC. Table 2 why two 0MKNS0s are presented. Generally Section 2.1 and 2.2 are too confusing, please re-organise this parts with providing details about mixing. Any standard for curing regime? Two much figures about the test, which could be deleted because most of them are standard equipment.
• 3.1 the author should indicate where the data is first, then move to the illustration of the data and finally discuss the data. Please re-organised the structure of this part. Table 5 is duplicated with Figures 6 to 9, which should be removed to appendix. Provide the error bars in Figures 10 and 11. Provide the definition of “Net flexural tensile strength” in Part 2. In figure 19, the corelation is low which is not suggested to be regressed. The procedure or details about the statistical analysis are suggested to provide in appendix.
• English should be further improved and some expression should be carefully checked, i.e., CO2 should be CO₂, the term should be uniformed. For example. The author randomly used FA and fly ash. The second “table 1” should be Table 6

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. The revised paper was improved after editing according to your comments. The response to your comments file was attached below.

Regards...

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is dealing with a study on “Characteristics of fly ash based alkali activated self-compacting concrete with and without nanosilica and metakaolin.”. There are a few concerns regarding the current manuscript that need to be addressed.

• The abstract needs to be written showing more briefly-clearly what contribution of the manuscript you want provide. What contribution you present for a more general conclusion.
• Highlights are not so effective in pointing out main contributions to the field.
• In the introduction, the authors should better explain the difference between data-driven and model-based approaches.
• Literature survey is not sufficient to present the most updated status for further justification of the originality of the manuscript.
• Please compare critically the provided results with the results or fit parameters provided in the literature.
• Present in-depth analysis and interpretation in connection to results. 
• What are the limitations and disadvantages of the implemented analysis?
• A more creative and descriptive argumentation should be given to the outcomes: Besides, the applicability of outcomes to other studies rather than same studies should be discussed.
• The conclusion should include some quantitative findings

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. The revised paper was improved after editing according to your comments. The response to your comments file was attached below.

Regards...

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my previous comments have been carefully addressed by the authors. The paper can meet the standard for publishing in the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

According to me, the current status of the paper can be accepted for publication.