Study on Durability Properties of Coconut Shell Concrete with Coconut Fiber
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should take into account the following suggestions (comments to authors).
- The authors should provide further details on the criteria when designing the concrete mixes
- Authors should improve figures in terms of quality. Some of them are not good enough to be included in this journalr
- Further details on the flexural results should be provided by the authors in terms of post-cracking behavior of coconut fibers, please provide further details and analysis on this issue.
- The authors should better emphasis which are the 'bottom line' conclusions of your research on this topic? How innovative were?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The authors should provide further details on the criteria when designing the concrete mixes.
Response 1: As suggested by the reviewer, it is revised and provided further details on the criteria about the concrete mixes under the section 3: Materials and mix proportions used.
Point 2: Authors should improve figures in terms of quality. Some of them are not good enough to be included in this journals.
Response 2: As suggested by the Reviewer, Figures quality are checked and the necessary changes have been made wherever it is needed in the revised manuscript. At this moment, we would like to inform the Reviewer that, at the time of original submission of the paper, we up loaded wrong file instead of right file. We hope that the reviewer may convince in this regard now and will consider further.
Point 3: Further details on the flexural results should be provided by the authors in terms of post-cracking behavior of coconut fibers, please provide further details and analysis on this issue.
Response 3: For kind information for the Reviewer, the details on flexural results were provided and published in an earlier study on “Optimization of Coconut Fiber in Coconut Shell Concrete and Its Mechanical and Bond Properties” about the post-cracking behavior and analysis of coconut fibers. (Reviewer may refer: Materials 2018, 11, 1726; doi: 10.3390/ma11091726).
Since the scope of the present study is on durability properties coconut shell concrete with coconut fibers and also study on the behavior of reinforced concrete beam element using coconut shell concrete with coconut fibre under flexure is under progress and will be sent for publication in due course of time. This is also for the kind information of the Reviewer please. We hope that the reviewer may convince in this regard and will consider
Point 4: The authors should better emphasis which are the bottom line conclusions of your research on this topic? How innovative were?
Response 4: As questions raised by the Reviewer, it was answered in the revised manuscript, under conclusion section that, it is emphasized in a better way about the bottom line of this research study on its topic and also about the innovation of this study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
I fail to understand the unique aspect of this research. What makes this paper unique? I feel that the work adds little to our knowledge in this area. A consequence, the reviewer does not recommend this paper for publication as its current version.
Author Response
Point 1: I fail to understand the unique aspect of this research. What makes this paper unique? I feel that the adds little to our knowledge in this area. A consequence, the reviewer does not recommend this paper for publication as its current version.
Response 1: First of all we authors regret for the inconvenience for the Reviewer. At this moment, we would like to inform the Reviewer that, at the time of original submission of the paper, we have up loaded wrong file instead of right file. This is the main reason made the reviewer disappointed. Now, the revised manuscript is submitted in addition to the original correct file with the comments and suggestions given by the other Reviewers are incorporated in the revised manuscript. This is for kind information of the Reviewer please.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The article entitled "Study on durability properties of coconut shell concrete using coconut fibre" presents the benefits of increasingly using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in composites with cement matrixes. This solution fits in with the subject of modern sustainable construction and therefore this manuscript is worth publishing in Buildings Journal. However, it is recommended that the paper be revised before publication. The specific amendments are as follows:
(1) The CSC abbreviation used is the most correct one. However, for the first time it should be given in an abstract in round brackets after the full name of the material tested, i.e. coconut shell concrete (CSC).
(2) The article lacks pictures of used agricultural waste or places from where it was collected. Admittedly, in verse 38 and 39 it is written that: „Figure 1a and 1b shows the source of raw Coconut shell and Coconut Fibre available at industries”, there are no such pictures in the article. Please check it and put these photos.
(3) Please provide the chemical and phase composition of the cement used.
(4) In the caption to Figure 7, a word (s) is missing at the beginning. Please correct it.
(5) Please, discuss the financial benefits of using waste materials presented in the article.
(6) In Section 5, one should give several main conclusions resulting from the content of the article. Currently, this section is more of a discussion than a conclusion.
(7) The article presents the results of testing concrete made with addition one of the many supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Therefore, in the Introduction section of the article, it would be necessary to characterize and discuss all groups of SCMs used as substitutes for concrete. For this purpose, one can use a quotation of an article in which all these materials are divided into special groups:
“An assessment of microcracks in the Interfacial Transition Zone of durable concrete composites with fly ash additives”, Composite Structures, 2018.
(8) Furthermore, it should be noted that substitution of cement in the composites with other materials is part of the concept of sustainable construction, or otherwise, green construction.
The authors of the article partly mention this issue. However, this topic has already been the subject of publication in the Buildings Journal and other journals. It is therefore required that the authors comment on the results of previous papers. In the Introduction section, the following article should be discussed and cited:
“Improvement of fracture toughness of green concrete as a result of addition of coal fly ash. Characterization of fly ash microstructure”, Materials Characterization, 2017.
Author Response
Point 1: The CSC abbreviation used is the most correct one. However, for the first time it should be given in an abstract in round brackets after the full name of the material tested, i.e. coconut shell concrete (CSC).
Response 1: As suggested by the Reviewer, it is done in the revised manuscript. For kind information of the reviewer, in the revised manuscript, as suggested by the other Reviewers, paper has been completely rewritten for its improvement by incorporating the comments given by the other Reviewers.
Point 2: The article lacks pictures of used agricultural waste or places from where it was collected. Admittedly, in verse 38 and 39 it is written that: “Figure 1a and 1b shows the source of raw coconut shell and coconut fibre available at industries”, there are no such pictures in the article. Please check it and put these photos.
Response 2: We authors thanks the Reviewer, for pointing out these lacking in the original version of the paper. As suggested by the Reviewer it was checked and put-up those photos in the revised manuscript.
At this moment, we would like to inform the Reviewer that, at the time of original submission of the paper, we up loaded wrong file instead of right file. This is also one of the reason for above remark.
Point 3: Please provide the chemical and phase composition of the cement used.
Response 3: As suggested by the Reviewer, it is provided the chemical composition of the cement used in this study in Table 1 in the revised manuscript.
Point 4: In the caption to Figure 7, a word (s) is missing at the beginning. Please correct it.
Response 4: It is checked and corrected in the revised paper.
Point 5: Please, discuss the financial benefits of using waste material presented in the article.
Response 5: For kind information of the Reviewer, both coconut shell and coconut fibres were brought from the coconut industry at free of cost and used. However, it is well established that the production of any lightweight concrete lead to cost effective irrespective of material used compare to normal weight concrete. The way to justify that the lightweight concrete is that, the use of lightweight concrete will reduce self-weight of the elements and then the reduction of cross section of the element and in turn the reduction of reinforcement requirement. Finally, the reduction of load coming on foundation and hence reduces the cost.
We hope that the reviewer may convince in this regard and will consider.
Point 6: In section 5, one should give several main conclusions resulting from the content of the article. Currently, this section is more of a discussion than a conclusion.
Response 6: As raised by the Reviewer, now in the revised manuscript the entire conclusions were revised and rewritten in the revised paper. For kind information of the reviewer, this particular comment is also in line with the other reviewer comments.
Point 7: The article presents the results of testing concrete made with addition one of the many supplementary cemetitious materials (SCMs). Therefore, in the introduction section of the article, it would be necessary to characterize and discuss all groups of SCMs used as substitutes for concrete. For this purpose, one can use quotation of an article in which all these materials are divided in to special groups:
“An assessment of microcracks in the interfacial transition zone of durable concrete composites with fly ash additives”, Composite Structures, 2018.
Response 7: As suggested by the Reviewer, quotation of the materials used in this study is quoted and grouped in the introduction section. Also the paper referred by the Reviewer is also cited in the revised manuscript for the above said purpose. (Pl.ref: Reference 3 in the revision).
Point 8: Furthermore, it should be noted that the substitution of cement in the composites with other materials is part of the concept of sustainable construction, or otherwise, green construction.
The authors of the article partly mention this issue. However, this topic has already been the subject of publication in the building journal and other journals. It is therefore required that the authors comment on the results of previous papers. In the introduction section, the following article should be discussed and cited:
“Improvement of fracture toughness of green concrete as a result of addition of coal fly ash. Characterization of fly ash microstructure”, Materials characterization, 2017.
Response 8: As suggested by the Reviewer, an article “Improvement of fracture toughness of green concrete as a result of addition of coal fly ash. Characterization of fly ash microstructure”, Materials characterization, 2017 was discussed in the introduction section and cited (Pl.ref : Reference 2 in the revision).
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the paper has been revised in accordance with the reviewer’s comments.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 comments
Point 1: English language and style are fine / minor spell check required.
Response 1: As suggested by the Reviewer, once again English language and style were rigorously checked and fine tuned in the revised paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no comments. This paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 comments
Point 1: English language and style are fine / minor spell check required.
Response 1: As suggested by the Reviewer, once again English language and style were rigorously checked and fine tuned in the revised paper.
