Effect of Activator and Mineral Admixtures on the Autogenous Shrinkage of Alkali-Activated Slag/Fly Ash

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In chapter 2.1, correct the indexes of chemical formulas.
2. Add the information about the materials used: bulk density and specific surface area.
3. In chapter 2.2, add the information, whether the water coefficient was calculated from GGBFS/FA only, or whether the admixtures MK and SF were also included in the calculation.
4. For figure 7a, please explain the meaning of the backward branch in the graph.                                                                                                     5. Moving Figure 10 to Section 3.6
6. In chapter 3.6 and 3.7, authors should write a justification of what could have caused such a different results for the MK mixture.
7. In the discussion, please compare the results with more other research works.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study compares the efficacy of activator and mineral admixtures in mitigating the autogenous shrinkage of AASF, and discussing the underlying mechanism. The results show that the use of activators with lower silicate modulus and sodium content, as well as incorporating metakaolin (MK) or silica fume is able to reduce the autogenous shrinkage of AAMs. The topic is interesting and the overall quality of the paper is good. The authors can enhance the paper by considering the following comments.

 

1. The AASF mix should be appropriately defined: (i) Provide chemical composition and fineness of fly ash and slag; (ii) Please clarify whether the weight ratio of sodium silicate is based on the solids or liquid;

2. Please clarify the procedure of mixing for producing AASF concrete. How was the curing done?

3. Whether all AASF mixes were stable and geopolymerization was achieved, please discuss?

4. The limits of the research and possible future development have not been presented and should be added in the end of this paper.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required to avoid typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the article for publication.