Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks for Sustainable Building Construction: A PRISMA-Guided Systematic Review and TCCM Analysis

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Introduction has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Result and Discussion section has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Conclusion has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

We have improved the resolution of the figures and removed redundant pictures.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive systematic review of Compressed Stabilised Earth Blocks (CSEBs) for sustainable building construction, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the TCCM (Theories, Contexts, Characteristics, Methodologies) framework. The study synthesises 256 peer-reviewed articles to analyze the influence of soil properties, stabilisers, fibers, binders, and production processes on CSEBs’ physical, mechanical, and durability performance. The research addresses critical gaps in standardization and scalability of CSEBs, highlighting their environmental and economic advantages over conventional building materials. The manuscript’s breadth—covering geographical trends, material innovations, and testing protocols—makes it a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in green construction. However, the following revisions are recommended to enhance rigor, clarity, and practical relevance.

Comments 1: The keywords include "Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEBs)" and "waste materials" but lack a term reflecting the core analytical framework "TCCM framework," which is central to the review’s synthesis approach. Adding "TCCM framework" to the keywords will better highlight the study’s methodological contribution and improve discoverability.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added and highlighted the keyword under the ‘keywords’ section.

Keywords: Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEBs); sustainable building materials; earthen materials; PRISMA 2020; TCCM framework; waste materials

Comments 2: Figure 2 (PRISMA Flowchart) contains inconsistent numerical data: "Records identified from Scopus" is listed as n=1, but "Records screened" totals n=360, creating a logical discrepancy. Correct the flowchart to accurately reflect the number of initial records, duplicates removed, and screened articles to ensure transparency in the literature search process.

Response 2: Thank you for the comment. I/We have accordingly modified the PRISMA flowchart to correct the typographical error.

Records identified from*: Scopus Databases (n = 361)

Comments 3: Table 2 (Types of stabilizers, binders and fibers) has formatting issues—columns are misaligned, and some entries (e.g., "NaOH Alkaline Activated Fly Ash" in Binders/Fibres) are truncated or unclear. Reorganize the table to separate "Stabilizer" sub-columns (Cement, Lime, Others) and "Binders/Fibers" clearly, with complete, consistent entries for each reference to facilitate cross-referencing.

Response 3: Thank you for this detailed and constructive observation. We acknowledge that the original formatting of Table 2 may have affected clarity and cross-referencing. Therefore, we have formatted the table and separated it into 2 tables, one with stabilizers and another with fibers.

Comments 4: Section 3.1.8 mentions that "natural fibers improve flexural strength" but notes conflicting findings (e.g., some fibers reduce tensile strength due to poor matrix adhesion). A quantitative summary (e.g., a meta-analysis table of fiber type, dosage, and strength effects) will resolve ambiguities and provide actionable insights for mix design.

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have updated the manuscript.

Comments 5: The review highlights the lack of global CSEB standards (Section 3.1.7) but does not compare key parameters (e.g., minimum compressive strength, water absorption limits) across existing regional standards (e.g., IS 1725, ASTM E2392M-10). Supplementing a comparative table of standard requirements will help identify harmonization opportunities.

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added a table under section 3.1.7 to compare global standards.

Comments 6: Section 3.2.3 (Durability Properties) discusses seismic performance but provides limited data on CSEBs’ behavior in extreme climates (e.g., high humidity, freeze-thaw cycles in temperate regions). Expanding the discussion to include climate-specific durability gaps will enhance the review’s global applicability.

Response 6: Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the content.

“3.2.3 Durability Properties of CSEBs

Researchers have evaluated the durability of CSEBs using rigorous testing methods, including seismic, cycle wetting and drying, freeze-thaw, and erosion tests, to assess their vulnerability to erosion and degradation due to air preconditioning resulting from weathering and pitting of the block surface.

Seismic

The seismic behavior of CSEB masonry has been investigated through experimental, analytical, and numerical studies, demonstrating promising structural performance under earthquake loading. Comparative analyses of 3D masonry models indicate that CSEB constructions outperform conventional burnt brick systems when subjected to seismic forces, particularly when earthquake-resistant features are incorporated (Srisanthi et al., 2014). Similarly, finite element investigations on single-storey masonry walls show that CSEB and geopolymer blocks exhibit improved structural response under seismic loading compared to adobe and conventional concrete blocks (De Villiers et al., 2021).

Structural configuration and reinforcement strategies significantly influence seismic performance. Concrete structural columns enhance the energy dissipation capacity of interlocking earth block walls, although the contribution of core column reinforcement alone is limited (Lan et al., 2023). Increasing the aperture rate (i.e., larger wall openings) reduces lateral load-bearing capacity, while the addition of lateral strengthening strips or composite wall configurations improves structural resistance. Experimental studies on these walls under flexural loading report stable hysteretic behavior and increased ductility with higher height-to-width aspect ratios; however, lateral resistance decreases in the presence of openings, with stress concentrations observed at corners and flange junctions (Laursen et al., 2015)(Qu et al., 2015) .

Reinforcement systems further enhance seismic resilience. The use of geogrid reinforcement has been shown to significantly improve ductility and seismic resistance in masonry vault structures (Ramage et al., 2019). Interlocking block designs also contribute to improved structural integrity by enhancing load transfer and confinement effects (Lan et al., 2023).

Despite these promising findings, the viability of CSEB construction in high-seismic regions remains contingent upon adequate reinforcement and design detailing. In areas lacking proper structural reinforcement, wall mass and seismic forces may limit application in multi-storey construction (Holliday et al., 2016). Furthermore, the literature reveals limited research on the performance of masonry systems—including CSEB—under extreme wind events such as tornadoes (Erdogmus et al., 2019), indicating a broader gap in hazard-resilient earth construction research.

Erosion Test

Erosion resistance is a critical durability parameter for CSEBs, particularly in regions exposed to rainfall, surface runoff, and splash erosion. Unstabilized compressed earth blocks exhibit poor resistance to water exposure and can degrade rapidly upon direct contact with moisture (Nshimiyimana et al., 2021). This underscores the necessity of stabilization and reinforcement to enhance long-term structural performance.

Stabilized blocks consistently outperform unstabilized counterparts in erosion resistance. The incorporation of fibers, while sometimes associated with a slight reduction in compressive strength, has been shown to improve resistance to surface erosion by enhancing crack control and structural integrity under moisture exposure (Nguyen et al., 2023)(Lejano et al., 2019). Similarly, bio-based binders such as carob gum have demonstrated promising results, improving both compressive strength and durability against water erosion, with optimal performance reported at a 2% dosage (Nouaouria and Nouaouria, 2023). Alternative industrial by-products have also shown strong erosion resistance potential. CSEBs stabilized with Calcium Carbide Residue (CCR) and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) exhibited excellent durability under both standard water pressure (50 kPa) and elevated pressure conditions (500 kPa), indicating their suitability for aggressive environmental exposure (Nshimiyimana et al., 2021).

These findings indicate that erosion resistance in CSEBs is highly dependent on stabilization strategy and material composition. While cement-based stabilization remains effective, alternative binders and fiber reinforcement offer promising pathways for improving durability while potentially reducing environmental impact. However, standardized testing procedures and comparative long-term performance data remain limited, highlighting the need for more systematic evaluation frameworks.

Cyclic Wetting and Drying Test

Cyclic wetting and drying tests are essential for evaluating the long-term durability of CSEBs under simulated environmental exposure. These tests replicate natural weathering conditions and assess the material’s resistance to moisture-induced degradation, which directly influences structural integrity and service life.

Studies indicate that incorporating crushed brick aggregates significantly improves resistance to cyclic wetting–drying and sulfate attack, enhancing overall durability performance (Kasinikota and Tripura, 2021a). Stabilization level also plays a critical role; a minimum cement content of approximately 10% has been recommended to improve resistance to rupture and environmental stressors such as precipitation, capillary rise, gravity-driven infiltration, suction effects, and internal condensation (Banakinao et al., 2022). Durability under wetting–drying cycles can be further enhanced through the incorporation of waterproofing agents, fiber reinforcement, and industrial by-products. These additives not only improve moisture resistance and mechanical stability but may also contribute to cost-effectiveness and reduced environmental impact. However, long-term performance validation under repeated environmental cycles remains an area requiring more systematic and standardized investigation.

Freeze-Thaw Performance

Freeze–thaw durability of CSEBs is strongly influenced by moisture content, material composition, and stabilization strategy. Damage due to freeze-thaw occurs exclusively when the moisture content of the specimen is above saturation threshold (Mak et al., 2016). In the absence of accessible water for capillary absorption, blocks subjected to freeze–thaw cycles showed minimal or no deterioration. Interestingly, certain dry earth blocks exhibited increased compressive strength after freeze–thaw exposure, particularly those without Plasticure, due to water absorption during testing that enabled additional cement hydration. However, improvements in wet strength were limited (Mak et al., 2016). Blocks stabilized with 5% cement, 2.5% lime, and 2.5% metakaolin demonstrated superior retention of dry compressive strength after 12 freeze–thaw cycles, though wet strength gains remained marginal (Mak et al., 2016). Similarly, combined cement–lime stabilization has been shown to significantly enhance freeze–thaw resistance and maintain structural integrity after repeated cycles (Rempel and Rempel, 2019). The incorporation of water repellents further improves freeze–thaw performance by reducing water absorption while preserving compressive strength (Mak et al., 2016). Standard testing procedures commonly adopted for such evaluations include ASTM C67, CSA A82-0, DD CEN/TS 772-22, and ASTM D560. “

Comments 7: The TCCM Analysis (Section 3.3) categorizes "Theories" and "Contexts" but does not explicitly link them to research gaps (e.g., how circular economy principles are underutilized in high-rise CSEB applications). Strengthening these connections will clarify the review’s contribution to theory-practice integration.

Response 7: Thank you for this insightful observation. I/We agree with this comment.

In response, Section 3.3 has been substantially revised to explicitly connect each theoretical orientation (Sustainable Material Science, Circular Economy, Structural Engineering, and Life Cycle Assessment) with its prevailing contextual settings and the resulting limitations. The revised discussion demonstrates that circular economy principles are primarily applied at the material substitution level and remain underutilized in structural-scale or high-rise CSEB applications. Similarly, structural studies emphasize compressive strength validation but rarely integrate lifecycle sustainability metrics or circular resource modeling. By explicitly mapping these theoretical–contextual interactions to unresolved gaps, the revised section clarifies how fragmentation across domains constrains translation from laboratory research to standardized, scalable construction systems. This strengthening of the theory–practice linkage enhances the conceptual contribution of the review.

Comments 8: Figure 13 (Main Findings) is a conceptual diagram with vague labels (e.g., "Stabiliation Improves FlexuralTensile Sirengih"). Correct typographical errors, standardize terminology (e.g., "Stabilization," "Flexural/Tensile Strength"), and add brief explanatory notes to ensure the diagram effectively summarizes key outcomes.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have removed the figure and added a paragraph in the section to better explain the concept.

Comments 9: Section 4 (Research Gaps) identifies the need for "standardized manufacturing guidelines" but does not propose actionable steps (e.g., core parameters for a universal mix design template). Providing a preliminary framework for standardized protocols will enhance the review’s practical impact.

Response 9: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. Therefore, I/we have added the gaps with the TCCM analysis and provided actionable suggestions for the same.

Comments 10: The Data Availability Statement states raw data are "available on request" but does not specify the type of data (e.g., PRISMA search strings, TCCM coding sheets, extracted strength/durability metrics). Detailing the available datasets will improve transparency and reproducibility of the review.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. The Data Availability Statement is based on MDPI's recommended statements, accessible at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/data/instructions in the Instructions for Authors section.

Comments 11: The manuscript references "256 relevant studies" but does not report inter-rater reliability (IRR) for article selection and data extraction. Reporting IRR (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) will validate the review’s methodological rigor, as multiple researchers were involved in screening and analysis.

Response 11: Thank you for this important observation. We acknowledge that reporting IRR strengthens the methodological rigor of systematic reviews. In this study, the screening and data extraction process was conducted by a single author using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure consistency in decision-making.

Although formal inter-rater reliability statistics were not applicable due to single-author screening, several measures were implemented to minimize selection bias. These included:

·       Clearly defined eligibility criteria established prior to screening

·       Systematic filtering using structured keyword strategies

·       Careful full-text evaluation when eligibility was uncertain

·       Transparent documentation of inclusion and exclusion steps (as shown in Fig. 1)

To enhance transparency, this methodological detail has now been explicitly clarified in the revised Methodology section.

“The screening and data extraction process was conducted by a single reviewer using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. While inter-rater reliability statistics were not applicable, systematic procedures were followed to ensure consistency and minimize selection bias.”

Comments 12: Section 5 (Conclusions) emphasizes CSEBs’ sustainability benefits but lacks a quantitative summary of environmental impacts (e.g., average embodied carbon reduction vs. fired clay bricks, waste valorization rates). Adding a concise meta-analysis of key sustainability metrics will strengthen the business case for CSEB adoption.

Response 12: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have added quantitative summary to the conclusion.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed and constructive feedback. We have improved the language.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Introduction has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Result and Discussion section has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Conclusion has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Not applicable

Thank you for the feedback.

We have improved the resolution of the figures and removed redundant pictures.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The article is not written in a correct or coherent manner. Several sections appear to be pasted into the manuscript without logical connection, resulting in a lack of consistency, structure, and overall flow. Due to these fundamental issues in organization and clarity, the paper does not meet the required academic standards and should be rejected.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive assessment and the comments provided in the pdf. We acknowledge that the earlier version of the manuscript suffered from weaknesses in organization, continuity, and narrative flow, which affected its overall clarity and readability.

In response to this comment and the comments provided by the reviewer in the earlier manuscript, the manuscript has been substantially restructured and rewritten to ensure logical progression, internal consistency, and academic coherence. Specifically:

• The Introduction has been rewritten to clearly establish the research context, motivation, and objectives in a sequential and connected manner.
• The Methodology section has been reorganized into clearly defined subsections, ensuring a transparent link between research objectives, experimental design, and analytical methods.
• The Results and Discussion sections have been restructured to avoid fragmentation, with results now presented systematically and discussed in direct relation to existing literature and study objectives.
• Redundant and disconnected text has been removed, and transitional explanations have been added to improve continuity between sections.
• The Conclusion has been refined to logically synthesize the key findings, implications, and limitations of the study.

Additionally, the entire manuscript has undergone comprehensive language editing to improve clarity, coherence, and academic tone and redundant tables and figures have been fixed.

We believe these extensive revisions directly address the reviewer’s concerns and significantly improve the manuscript’s structure, flow, and overall academic quality.

We respectfully request the reviewer to reconsider the manuscript in its revised form.

2. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed and constructive feedback. We have improved the language.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Introduction has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Result and Discussion section has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Conclusion has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

We have improved the resolution of the figures and removed redundant pictures.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Some terminology is used inconsistently throughout the paper. Abbreviations such as CEB, CSEB, and ICEB sometimes appear interchangeably, which may confuse readers. A clearer definition at first use and more consistent terminology across sections would improve readability.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have modified the manuscript accordingly.

Comments 2: The quality of Figures 6 and 7 needs significant improvement. Both figures are presented at low resolution, with blurred text and unclear labels, making keywords and relationships difficult to interpret, particularly when printed or zoomed. The authors are encouraged to replace these figures with high-resolution versions and ensure that all labels are clearly legible.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognise the need to improve the resolution of the figures. Therefore, we have replaced the older figure with higher-resolution versions as advised.

We have also removed the other figure as the description was already present in the manuscript.

Comments 3: The discussion on soil stabilization and mechanical performance would benefit from additional recent studies on interface and bonding mechanisms. In particular, when describing the role of cementitious binders and stabilizers in improving strength and durability, the authors are encouraged to include relevant experimental research on grout-soil or binder-soil interface behavior (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-13750.).

Response 3: Thank you for the valuable suggestion. The recommended study has been incorporated in the section discussing mechanical performance and soil–binder interaction.

“The interaction between stabilized soil and binding agents plays a critical role in governing shear resistance and failure mechanisms. Recent experimental work on grout–soil interfaces has demonstrated that interfacial shear strength is strongly influenced by soil density and specimen height, with deformation localized within narrow shear zones (Han et al., 2026). The development of finite-slip constitutive models further highlights the importance of accurately characterizing soil–binder interaction for predicting mechanical performance.”

Comments 4: The description of the bibliometric and TCCM analysis is a bit hard to follow in its current form. It would be helpful if the authors could briefly clarify which software or tools were used and how the key parameters (such as keyword thresholds) were selected, so that readers can better understand how Figures 6 and 7 were generated.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognise the need to improve the description and add the names of the tools. Accordingly, we have incorporated these changes.

““Bibliometrix, " an open-source tool for quantitative research in scientometrics and bibliometrics, was utilised alongside its web application, “Biblioshiny" for the analysis (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017)”.

Comments 5: The sustainability discussion related to waste-derived binders and stabilizers could be further strengthened. When addressing the use of industrial or construction waste materials in CSEB production, it is recommended to cite recent studies that evaluate mixture optimization together with environmental and economic performance.(e.g., Sustainable utilization of shield waste muck for synchronous grouting: mixture ratio optimization and assessment of environmental and economic performance. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2026, 168: 107190.).

Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. I/We agree with this comment. We have revised the whole paper and included the sustainability aspect at every discussion.

Comments 6: Several sections read more like a summary of previous studies rather than a critical discussion. The manuscript could be strengthened by adding more comparison and reflection, for example by pointing out differences between studies, discussing limitations in the existing literature, or highlighting where further research is still needed.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have revised the manuscript and added critical discussion within all sections.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

Thank you for the feedback.

The Introduction has been comprehensively revised and reorganized.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. 

Necessary changes have been incorporated as per the comments. The Methodology section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The feedback has been incorporated, and the Result section has been updated and highlighted.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

I appreciate your feedback. Necessary modifications have been incorporated for the conclusions to be supported by the results.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

Thank you for your feedback. We have made the necessary changes by changing the resolution of the figures, deleting/modifying unnecessary figures/tables.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: （P2, Line 42）The article mentions that the cement and steel industries account for "over 10 percent" of greenhouse gas emissions. This seriously underestimates the actual situation. The general academic consensus is that cement accounts for about 8%, steel accounts for about 7-9%, and the total of the two should be close to 15-17%. Please cite the most recent data and revise the description to ensure accuracy and avoid misleading readers.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that stating “over 10%” for cement and steel combined can underestimate their combined contribution and may mislead readers. We have therefore revised the sentence to reflect the latest widely cited percentage from “The International Energy Agency (IEA)”. The statement has been corrected and supported with updated references.

“In particular, the cement and steel industries together account for nearly 14% of global energy-related emissions, highlighting the urgent need to reduce reliance on these materials  (IEA, 2024).”

Comments 2: （P5, Line 194）Figure 1, "Structure of the article," has low resolution and only serves as a table of contents outline, with limited academic value. Suggestion for modification: It is suggested to delete this figure or replace it with a "Graphical Abstract" that summarises research findings, rather than just listing chapter titles. 

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. Agree. We have, have deleted the figure and added a graphical abstract.

Comments 3: （P10, Line 334 and P11, Line 344） Figures 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are all unclear. Please correct them. 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have replaced the older figures with higher-resolution versions as advised.

We have also removed the other figure as the description was already present in the manuscript.

Comments 4: （P14, Line 449, P19, Line 702 and P32, Line 954） Figure 12 (standard comparison) is challenging to interpret, and Figure 9 (OMC distribution) is too brief. Table 2 contains a large amount of information and lacks organization. It is recommended to convert it into a summary chart, such as a "percentage change chart of the impact of different additives on strength".

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.

We have modified the writeup and divided the table into two tables to make it clearer.

Comments 5: （P26, Line 712, and P27, Line 715） Both Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the 'test type', with repetitive content. Please merge the two. If there is no special classification logic in the tree diagram of Figure 10, it is recommended to delete it and keep the frequency statistics chart of Figure 11 directly. 

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have removed one of the figures and kept the frequency chart as advised.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1:  Thank you for such constructive feedback.

We have taken the help professional English editor and improved the improved the language in the manuscript.