Large Concrete Rubble as a New Structural Construction Material: Opportunities and Digital Processes for Load-Bearing Walls

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached review report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank all reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this article. They contribute to make a paper of higher quality. All changes are available in track-change.

State of the art
- Citation numbers should be placed in bracket format immediately after the authors' names.
Please update the text accordingly to ensure proper referencing.
Thank you for highlighting it. We corrected to ensure proper formating. 

Problem statement
- It is stated that: “The structural performances are meant to comply with Swiss codes”.
Related codes should be cited in the text.
Thank you for this suggestion. We added reference to the related code of stone masonry.

Design exploration
- In Fig. 7, authors listed a series of possible structural members that can be constructed with concrete rubbles. But the main question is that is it even logical to consider some of these elements, for example cable and membrane? For example, in the case of cable, what would be the role of concrete rubbles?
Some structural typologies are not the best suited for concrete rubble, the goal was to outline the extent of possibilities. One might still want to design cable structures with concrete rubble. It might be for sculptural, formal or fire-resistance consideration for example. This has been clarified in the text. Thank you for pointing it out.

Methods
- What was the logic behind selection of the mentioned importance multipliers, ??? and ????
The logic behind the selection of the importance multipliers ??? and ??? is to prioritize the void ratio as optimisation (half of the total score), since it is the most influent on the environmental impact and labour related to void infill. Besides, the total of the factors must be equal to 1 to ensure that the Masonry Quality is always expressed in percentage. This has been clarified in the text.

- Why page 20 is left blank?
Page 20 was blank because of a page brake error in the final export. It has been corrected.

- Regarding the structural assessment, what about the in-plane and out-of-plane strength of the walls made of concrete rubbles? Although it might be stated that in-plane shear strength may not be expected from these types of walls, which will only withstand gravitational loading, but out-of-plane stability of these walls, the maximum spacing of vertical ties should be considered and discussed.
The out-of-plane stability is a good point of concern. In the norm for irregular stone masonry of switzerland, it is mostly solved by a maximum slenderness ratio (7), which is here respected (224/32=7). Such information has been added in the results of the structural assessment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The proposed research title shall be rephrased 

2- The abstract shall be improved and be structured in terms problem, objective, method, results and discussion, it allows the reader to have clear understanding of the core content. 

3- The keywords shall be selected aimfully leading the search process 

4- The labels for the figures are chosen long and unenlightening 

5- The introduction provides uninformative sections, the State of art to be added in same section including the problem statement and objectives.  The research design is inappropriate and not in research paper format. 

6- The methodology provided in Figure 6 is not in order 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript need a major improve in terms of English editing, since the sentences are not coherent and hard scientific sounds. 

Author Response

The authors thank all reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this article. They contribute to make a paper of higher quality. All changes are available in track-change.

 

1- The proposed research title shall be rephrased

Thank you for your suggestion of rephrasing the title. As we fail to understand what doesn go well with the title, we still believe the current title best represents the content of the paper.

 

2- The abstract shall be improved and be structured in terms problem, objective, method, results and discussion, it allows the reader to have clear understanding of the core content.

Our goal was already to have an abstract that follows such a structure. Following your comment, we have sligthtly modified it to make the structure even more explicit.  

 

3- The keywords shall be selected aimfully leading the search process

Thank you for the comment. We have reviewed the keywords, but could not identified more suitable ones.

 

4- The labels for the figures are chosen long and unenlightening

Thank you for your feedback. The long captions of figures have been shortened. All figure captions have been reviewed to ensure relevant information is provided and not found elsewhere.

 

5- The introduction provides uninformative sections, the State of art to be added in same section including the problem statement and objectives. The research design is inappropriate and not in research paper format.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the introductory sections. We adjusted accordingly and moved the State of the Art, the problem statement and the objectives as subsection of the introduction. The research thus now follow the proper format.

 

6- The methodology provided in Figure 6 is not in order

Thank you for pointing out the mismatch between the paper structure numbers and Figure 6. We corrected it accordingly.

 

The manuscript need a major improve in terms of English editing, since the sentences are not coherent and hard scientific sounds.

To ensure excellent English editing, we implemented the comments of an external proofreader, who is also added to the acknowledgements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article focuses on the reuse of large concrete rubble and examines how they can be used as new building materials. The aim of the study is to increase sustainability in the construction sector and support the recycling of concrete by using large flat concrete rubble obtained from demolition directly as building materials. This study is quite valuable in terms of its subject and purpose.

1) In the introduction section, a detailed literature summary of recent studies conducted in the past should be given.

2) Chapter 7, in other words, the discussion section, is an important part of the study. In this section, more references should be given and the findings should be compared with these reference studies.

The study is written more like a thesis than an article. It could be written more concisely and briefly. The study is quite valuable. It is certain that writing it as a shorter and clearer article will increase the value of this study even more. This is an optimistic suggestion to the authors.

Author Response

The authors thank all reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on this article. They contribute to make a paper of higher quality. All changes are available in track-change.

1) In the introduction section, a detailed literature summary of recent studies conducted in the past should be given
The State of the Art has been moved to the introduction section and complemented with recent studies.

2) Chapter 7, in other words, the discussion section, is an important part of the study. In this section, more references should be given and the findings should be compared with these reference studies.
Thank you for highlighting the importance of the discussion section. Indeed, comparison with reference studies is of importance and has been added regarding mortar quantities, tool accessibility for scanning and for assembly, and for applicability to the existing stock of concrete rubble. It adds to the quality of the section and the paper, thank you.

The study is written more like a thesis than an article. It could be written more concisely and briefly. The study is quite valuable. It is certain that writing it as a shorter and clearer article will increase the value of this study even more. This is an optimistic suggestion to the authors.
The study is indeed rather long and contains elements similar to thesis writing. The text is already a synthesis of a longer version. The removed content will be published in other articles. We attempted to write it even shorter, but it would lack some details important for the reader willing to replicate such construction method and be actually used in industry.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The abstract dosent reflect the title and boddy 

2- The problem statements are more to waste management rather than concrete rubble load-bearing wall 

3- The aim of the research shall be emphasizing on bearing wall 

4- The methodology shall be discussing the available test done for bearing wall 

5- The results shall be presented in abstract and the feasibilitiy of the method to be shown

6- The keword are general and are not reflecting the toppic 

7- The Figure 1 prefered to be presented in section 1. Introduction rather that abstract 

8- Section 1.1 to 1.5 is too long and lack of critical review result. That is required to be summrized and tabulated.

9- Section 2, the material charactristics shall be explained 

10- Section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,  to be discussed in section 1.1 and the review results shall be presented as of critical review tabulation.

11- Section 3 and section 4 is too long and it is not up to journal paper format

12- Section 5 is unnecessary 

13- The conclusion is lack of detailed result report, comparision, the aims and objectives never been adressed 

Author Response

1- The abstract dosent reflect the title and boddy 
Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed the abstract to ensure that it reflects the title and the body.
2- The problem statements are more to waste management rather than concrete rubble load-bearing wall 
Thank you for the comment. After careful review, while some industry challenges could also relate to waste management, we believe that the subsection 1.2 Problem statement provides detailed information regarding construction processes and considerations regarding the reuse of concrete rubble from demolition to make load-bearing walls.
3- The aim of the research shall be emphasizing on bearing wall 
Thank you for the feedback. In the introduction, the research gaps, the objectives, the scope, the design exploration, and the methods and results all emphasise the structural properties of the walls.
4- The methodology shall be discussing the available test done for bearing wall 
In Methods section, subsection 3.3.3 Structural assesment, the details of the compression load test are provided in details.
5- The results shall be presented in abstract and the feasibilitiy of the method to be shown
Thank you for your feedback. The abstract mentions the feasibility and the scalability of the method as the main result.
6- The keword are general and are not reflecting the toppic 
After a new review of the keywords, we believe they accurately depict the paper's content.
7- The Figure 1 prefered to be presented in section 1. Introduction rather that abstract 
Thank you for your comment. The Figure 1 is introduced in section 1, in the first subsection. Its position helps captivate the audience’s attention and visually understand the paper's content.
8- Section 1.1 to 1.5 is too long and lack of critical review result. That is required to be summrized and tabulated.
Thank you for the feedback. Sections 1.1 to 1.5 have already been shortened, while all relevant and critical information is provided so that the reader understands the extent of existing work, its limitations, and the goal of this study. 
9- Section 2, the material charactristics shall be explained
The material characteristics are provided in subsections 1.1.1, 1.4, 2.2.
10- Section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,  to be discussed in section 1.1 and the review results shall be presented as of critical review tabulation.
Subsections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 offer original content for a journal paper. For this reason, they are not part of subsection 1.1 State of the art, and are critically reviewed at the end of section 2.
11- Section 3 and section 4 is too long and it is not up to journal paper format
Sections 3 and 4 have already been shortened to retain only the most essential information for anyone wanting to reproduce the methods and the results. We believe they align with the open access ethos while avoiding superfluous text.
12- Section 5 is unnecessary 
Thank you for your feedback. Section 5 is critical to understanding the paper's added scientific value and comparing the results with those of other studies and methods.
13- The conclusion is lack of detailed result report, comparision, the aims and objectives never been adressed 
The critical comparison with other studies, the objectives and the remaining work are detailed in Section 5. The conclusion summarizes the paper so that a reader jumping directly to the conclusion to get a glimpse of the paper has all the necessary elements.