Determination of the Optimum Amount of Superplasticizer Additive for Self-Compacting Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Author Response

Determination of the optimum amount of superplasticizer additive for
self-compacting concrete

----

Dear Reviewers,

We greatly appreciate the opportunity you give us to improve the paper with your valuable comments. Here you can find the detailed comments and performed changes.

Best regards,

The authors

Responses to comments:
 
Reviewer #1
This work could be accepted for publication. I suggest the authors to improve the introduction section with more current relevant works.
Many thanks for these encouraging comments. The introduction was enriched as follows:
“SPAs are considered to be the most important element in SCC. The progress, evolution and popularity of SCC in recent years has been driven by the progression in the chemical formulation of the latest SPA generation. The polycarboxylate type SPA makes it possible to achieve appropriate workability and flowability in concrete in spite of the high content of fines that these concretes have, making the mixture more viscous and reducing the amount of water by up to 40% [13]. In addition, it has been shown that the use of these SPAs enables the recycled concretes to minimise the property reduction caused by using these recycled aggregates [14–16]. Nonetheless, as Revilla-Cuesta et al. [17] concluded, the optimization of the water content is need to balance the extra water required by the high water absorption of the recycled aggregates and the reduction in the effective w/c ratio require to increase the mechanical properties of recycled concretes.”.
“As Okamura states “When self-compacting concrete becomes so widely used that it is seen as the “standard concrete” rather than a “special concrete,” we will have succeeded in creating durable and reliable concrete structures that require very little maintenance work.” [21]. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to have a design method for SSC as fast, economical and robust as possible. According to the method proposed by Okamura, the design of a self-compacting concrete begins with the determination of the SPA in mortars, after which, it is adjusted in concrete mix trials. Other methods are based on the definition of the saturation point determined in pastes. The advantage of this method is that the volume and cost of mortars and pastes is smaller than concrete. Melo et al. [22] proposed a method to optimize the SPA in self-compacting concretes by mean of tests performed in paste and mortars. Kwan et al. [23] concluded that the effect of SPA varies according to the w/C ratio and the fine/total aggregate ratio, making it even more difficult to design these SCC. Brouwers et al. [24] defined a design method for conventional strength SSC based in minimizing the volume of mortar. All these different methods which have been developed, according Ashish et al [25], could be divided in 6 categories namely empirical design method, statistical factorial design method, strength-based design method, rheology of paste method, particle packing method and Eco-SCC mixture design method.”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is all clearly laid out. All presented key elements are clear: abstract, introduction, theoretical background, research methodology, results of the research and comprehensive discussion and conclusions.

The Author(s) used the phrase “superplasticiser additives”. For example in sentence: “…Thirdly, and most importantly, it is imperative to use superplasticiser additives (SPA) in order to achieve the workability necessary for a self-compacting concrete [11]….”. As it well known water reducers, retarders, and superplasticizers are chemical admixtures for concrete. Mineral additives of concrete are dispersive natural and technical materials (mainly inorganic and non-water-soluble as opposed to chemical admixtures). I suggest to use more precise naming of concrete mix ingredients.

Please check it for example in Proceedings of the International RILEM Conference (The Role of Admixtures in High Performance Concrete) edited by J. G. Cabrera and R. Rivera-Villareal, March 21-26, 1999, where SPA abbreviation were used as superplasticizers admixtures.

“A lack of SPA in concrete without enough flowability can lead to serious durability problems in structures.” – What exactly the problems did the authors have in mind?

The literature review is not complete – In my opinion, several items are missing, such as:

“Optimum superplasticiser dosage and aggregate proportions for SCC” by A. K. H. Kwan and I. Y. T. Ng (Thomas Telford Ltd, 2009, doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.00010),

“Optimization of superplasticizer content in self-compacting concrete” by K.A. Melo and W.L. Repette (Springer 2006, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5104-3_57) or

“An overview on mixture design of self-compacting concrete” by Deepankar Kumar Ashish1,2 | Surender Kumar Verma1 (WILEY 2018, DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700279)

In the Fig. 1 is an error: the author gives the particle size of aggregate grains in "%" and should give in "mm".

In Fig. 2 descriptions are of different sizes - 15. 5 cm is smaller than the others.

Regularity can be seen in the test results: for a smaller value of w/c, a greater influence of the SP on the fluidity of the tested concrete mix can be seen. Author(s) wrote: „…For w/c = 0.4 the saturation point is clearly defined for 2% additive. However, for w/c = 0.38, although the definition is not so clear, it is verified that from 2 % the fluidity does not improve…” – The measurement results were undoubtedly influenced by the time of SP addition. For verification purposes, tests should be carried out again for other time intervals of the addition of SP and/or different percentage amounts added in each time.

The author(s) did not give any information on whether the mixing times of the concrete mixes were the same in the concrete flowability tests as in the Marsh cone studies.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript applsci-782057

Determination of the optimum amount of superplasticizer additive for
self-compacting concrete

----

Dear Reviewers,

We greatly appreciate the opportunity you give us to improve the paper with your valuable comments. Here you can find the detailed comments and performed changes.

Best regards,

The authors

Responses to comments:
 
Reviewer #2
The article is all clearly laid out. All presented key elements are clear: abstract, introduction, theoretical background, research methodology, results of the research and comprehensive discussion and conclusions.
Many thanks for these encouraging comments. Replies to the comments are detailed in the following.
1. The Author(s) used the phrase “superplasticiser additives”. For example in sentence: “…Thirdly, and most importantly, it is imperative to use superplasticiser additives (SPA) in order to achieve the workability necessary for a self-compacting concrete [11]….”. As it well known water reducers, retarders, and superplasticizers are chemical admixtures for concrete. Mineral additives of concrete are dispersive natural and technical materials (mainly inorganic and non-water-soluble as opposed to chemical admixtures). I suggest to use more precise naming of concrete mix ingredients.
Please check it for example in Proceedings of the International RILEM Conference (The Role of Admixtures in High Performance Concrete) edited by J. G. Cabrera and R. Rivera-Villareal, March 21-26, 1999, where SPA abbreviation were used as superplasticizers admixtures.
Thank you for your correction, this modification has been implemented among the whole paper.
2. “A lack of SPA in concrete without enough flowability can lead to serious durability problems in structures.” – What exactly the problems did the authors have in mind?
The following text was added lines 66 to 69:
“A low flowability can cause high porosity and permeability with the corresponding loss of durability. In addition, it will require a higher energy consumption for its correct vibration, if this is necessary/possible.”.
3. The literature review is not complete – In my opinion, several items are missing, such as:
“Optimum superplasticiser dosage and aggregate proportions for SCC” by A. K. H. Kwan and I. Y. T. Ng (Thomas Telford Ltd, 2009, doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.00010),
“Optimization of superplasticizer content in self-compacting concrete” by K.A. Melo and W.L. Repette (Springer 2006, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5104-3_57) or
“An overview on mixture design of self-compacting concrete” by Deepankar Kumar Ashish1,2 | Surender Kumar Verma1 (WILEY 2018, DOI: 10.1002/suco.201700279)
Thank you very much form your comment. The introduction was enriched using the suggested references as follows:
“SPAs are considered to be the most important element in SCC. The progress, evolution and popularity of SCC in recent years has been driven by the progression in the chemical formulation of the latest SPA generation. The polycarboxylate type SPA makes it possible to achieve appropriate workability and flowability in concrete in spite of the high content of fines that these concretes have, making the mixture more viscous and reducing the amount of water by up to 40% [13]. In addition, it has been shown that the use of these SPAs enables the recycled concretes to minimise the property reduction caused by using these recycled aggregates [14–16]. Nonetheless, as Revilla-Cuesta et al. [17] concluded, the optimization of the water content is need to balance the extra water required by the high water absorption of the recycled aggregates and the reduction in the effective w/c ratio require to increase the mechanical properties of recycled concretes.”.
“As Okamura states “When self-compacting concrete becomes so widely used that it is seen as the “standard concrete” rather than a “special concrete,” we will have succeeded in creating durable and reliable concrete structures that require very little maintenance work.” [21]. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to have a design method for SSC as fast, economical and robust as possible. According to the method proposed by Okamura, the design of a self-compacting concrete begins with the determination of the SPA in mortars, after which, it is adjusted in concrete mix trials. Other methods are based on the definition of the saturation point determined in pastes. The advantage of this method is that the volume and cost of mortars and pastes is smaller than concrete. Melo et al. [22] proposed a method to optimize the SPA in self-compacting concretes by mean of tests performed in paste and mortars. Kwan et al. [23] concluded that the effect of SPA varies according to the w/C ratio and the fine/total aggregate ratio, making it even more difficult to design these SCC. Brouwers et al. [24] defined a design method for conventional strength SSC based in minimizing the volume of mortar. All these different methods which have been developed, according Ashish et al [25], could be divided in 6 categories namely empirical design method, statistical factorial design method, strength-based design method, rheology of paste method, particle packing method and Eco-SCC mixture design method.”.
4. In the Fig. 1 is an error: the author gives the particle size of aggregate grains in "%" and should give in "mm".
Thank you very much, the figure was corrected:

Figure 1. Aggregate grading curves.
5. In Fig. 2 descriptions are of different sizes - 15. 5 cm is smaller than the others.
Thank you very much, the figure was corrected:

Figure 2. Marsh cone test assembly.
6. Regularity can be seen in the test results: for a smaller value of w/c, a greater influence of the SP on the fluidity of the tested concrete mix can be seen. Author(s) wrote: „…For w/c = 0.4 the saturation point is clearly defined for 2% additive. However, for w/c = 0.38, although the definition is not so clear, it is verified that from 2 % the fluidity does not improve…” – The measurement results were undoubtedly influenced by the time of SP addition. For verification purposes, tests should be carried out again for other time intervals of the addition of SP and/or different percentage amounts added in each time.
Indeed, for clarify this point, the following sentence was added, lines AA to BB:
“The flowability is undoubtedly influenced by the mixing time of SP addition and testing with other time intervals of the addition of SP and/or different percentage amounts added could result in a more accurate saturation point value. In this case, the measurements results are influenced by the time of SP addition but it has not been necessary more accuracy.”
7. The author(s) did not give any information on whether the mixing times of the concrete mixes were the same in the concrete flowability tests as in the Marsh cone studies.
Indeed, the following text was added:
Lines (129 to 130): “Before begin to manufacture the mortars, the water and the SPA was mixed, after which, the cement, water and SPA were mixed for 3 minutes.”.
Lines (141 to 145): “First, from the largest to the smallest aggregates are introduced into the concrete mixer, after which, the cement is added, at this point the concrete mixer is started and approximately the 90% of the adjusted amount of water is added. After 1 minute of mixing, the remaining 10% of the adjusted amount of water and the SPA were added. The mixing procedure continues for 8 minutes before perform the workability tests.”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article topic is quite interesting for the audience, objective of the research and methods are clearly and in detail explained by the authors. Conclusions are also supported by the results that were reached in the field. Anyhow, some minor changes are recommended to the authors to be done, as follows:

1. It would be interesting if in chapter 3. Results and discussion the authors could introduce few paragraphs in order to emphasize much better the results they were reached in comparison with other results obtained by other researchers in this domain and show much clearly which is their main step beyond state of the art. Few more bibliographic references should be specified / presented in this section as well.
2. A proofreading of the text is recommended to be done by the authors / few expressions needs to be reconsidered: e.g. "from a point denominated saturation point in the Marsh cone test, a point...."..."Point appears three times only in this sentence (Line 65 and 66). "Coinciding"??? (Line 201)..."there is hardly and variation"???? (Line 203)...and so on...
3. Some sentences are too long and  sometimes it is not very clear what the authors intend to emphasize in the text.
4. The "a" article is too often used in the text, but not every time is needed (e.g. "by a indirect"... (Line 11), "a large number of tests"...(Line 14)..."a high quantity" (Line 42), "quite a satisfactory" (Line 44)...and so on...In all these cases and many many other cases (hundred times in the article) article "a" is not needed to be used in the text and therefore should be deleted.
5. Counting of sub-chapters of Section 3 is wrong (see lines 176, 192, 243)...All sub-chapters are counted as 3.1, instead of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 how it is normal /how it should be.
6. An impersonal way of addressing should be done in a technical document...expressions such as "we obtain"/ "we compare"  (Lines 260, 270, 279) should be presented in an impersonal way (e.g. "the obtained results are proportional"... )
7. Author contribution should be emphasized as it is requested to do so in the template (Lines 309-315) have not been fulfilled / completed by the authors.
8. At the "References" section right at the end, name of the journals / number of volumes should be provided in the "Italic" style and number of volume must be highlighted in "Bold" - Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume...The guidelines outlined in the 'Instructions for
   Authors' on the journal website should be highly respected.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript applsci-782057   Determination of the optimum amount of superplasticizer additive for  self-compacting concrete    ----  

Dear Reviewers,   We greatly appreciate the opportunity you give us to improve the paper with your valuable comments. Here you can find the detailed comments and performed changes.  

Best regards,   The authors   Responses to comments:   Reviewer #3

The article topic is quite interesting for the audience, objective of the research and methods are clearly and in detail explained by the authors. Conclusions are also supported by the results that were reached in the field. Anyhow, some minor changes are recommended to the authors to be done, as follows: Many thanks for these encouraging comments.

Answers to the reviewer comments are detailed in the following.

1.It would be interesting if in chapter 3. Results and discussion the authors could introduce few paragraphs in order to emphasize much better the results they were reached in comparison with other results obtained by other researchers in this domain and show much clearly which is their main step beyond state of the art. Few more bibliographic references should be specified / presented in this section as well.

Thank you very much for your comment, the following references were added:  [17] V. Revilla-Cuesta, M. Skaf, F. Faleschini, J.M. Manso, V. Ortega-López, Self-compacting concrete manufactured with recycled concrete aggregate: An overview, J. Clean. Prod. 262 (2020) 121362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.121362. [21] H. Okamura, M. Ouchi, Self-Compacting Concrete, 2003. [22] K.A. Melo, W.L. Repette, OPTIMIZATION OF SUPERPLASTICIZER CONTENT IN SELF-COMPACTING CONCRETE BT - Measuring, Monitoring and Modeling Concrete Properties, in: M.S. KONSTA-GDOUTOS (Ed.), Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2006: pp. 469–477. [23] A.K.H. Kwan, I.Y.T. Ng, Optimum superplasticiser dosage and aggregate proportions for SCC, Mag. Concr. Res. 61 (2009) 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2008.00010. [24] H.J.H. Brouwers, H.J. Radix, Self-Compacting Concrete: Theoretical and experimental study, (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.06.002. [25] D.K. Ashish, S.K. Verma, An overview on mixture design of self-compacting concrete, Struct. Concr. 20 (2019) 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700279. Regarding to the comparison of the results obtained, after an exhaustive bibliographic review, no example has been found in which the proposed technique has been previously used. 

2. A proofreading of the text is recommended to be done by the authors / few expressions needs to be reconsidered: e.g. "from a point denominated saturation point in the Marsh cone test, a point...."..."Point appears three times only in this sentence (Line 65 and 66). "Coinciding"??? (Line 201)..."there is hardly and variation"???? (Line 203)...and so on...

Thank you very much for your comment. To correct these mistakes, the document was sent to a native English speaker for review. The cited sentences were modified to: Lines 70 to 72: “... from the denominated as saturation point in the Marsh cone test, the quantity of SPA from which the concrete's fluidity gain is minimal despite a notable increase in the amount of SPA.”. Lines 232 to 235 “Figure 9 shows the values of the slump flow diameter and the t500. It can be seen how both the diameter and the t500 show an important variation when passing from SPA/C = 1.5 to 2 %, agreeing with the saturation point obtained with the Marsh cone test. However, between 2 and 3 % there is no variation.”.

3. Some sentences are too long and sometimes it is not very clear what the authors intend to emphasize in the text.

Thank you very much for your comment. To correct these mistakes, the document was sent to a native English speaker for review.  

4. The "a" article is too often used in the text, but not every time is needed (e.g. "by a indirect"... (Line 11), "a large number of tests"...(Line 14)..."a high quantity" (Line 42), "quite a satisfactory" (Line 44)...and so on...In all these cases and many many other cases (hundred times in the article) article "a" is not needed to be used in the text and therefore should be deleted.

Thank you very much for your comment. To correct these mistakes, the document was sent to a native English speaker for review. The following modifications were performed: Line 11 "by a indirect" was replaced by "by indirect". Line 14 "a large number of tests " was replaced by "large number of tests ". Line 42 "a high quantity " was replaced by "high quantity ". Line 44 "quite a satisfactory " was replaced by "quite satisfactory ".

5. Counting of sub-chapters of Section 3 is wrong (see lines 176, 192, 243). All sub-chapters are counted as 3.1, instead of 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 how it is normal /how it should be.

Thank you very much for the observation, the changes were implemented in the text. 

6. An impersonal way of addressing should be done in a technical document...expressions such as "we obtain"/ "we compare" (Lines 260, 270, 279) should be presented in an impersonal way (e.g. "the obtained results are proportional"... )

Thank you very much for your correction, the text was reviewed in search of personal forms to replace them with impersonal ones. The following sentences were modified:  Lines 297 to 298: “If concrete mixer method results are correlated with the slump flow test results, it can be seen that results proportional to those of t500 and inversely proportional to D were obtained.”. Lines 301 to 302: “If the concrete mixer method results are correlated with the L-box test results, it is not possible to determine a proper correlation.”. Lines 310 to 312: “If the concrete mixer method results are correlated with the V funnel tests results, as both…”.

7. Author contribution should be emphasized as it is requested to do so in the template (Lines 309-315) have not been fulfilled / completed by the authors.

Author Contributions: For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. Conceptualization, Carlos Thomas; Jose Adolfo Sainz-Aja Guerra, Carrascal Isidro A. Data curation, Soraya Diego; Formal analysis, Jose Adolfo Sainz-Aja Guerra, Carrascal Isidro A. and Juan A Polanco; Investigation, Jose Adolfo Sainz-Aja Guerra, Carrascal Isidro A., Juan A Polanco, Israel Sosa and Jose A Casado; Methodology, Carrascal Isidro A., Juan A Polanco and Carlos Thomas; Resources, Soraya Diego; Supervision, Jose A Casado; Writing – original draft, Jose Adolfo Sainz-Aja Guerra; Writing – review & editing, Carlos Thomas. 

8. At the "References" section right at the end, name of the journals / number of volumes should be provided in the "Italic" style and number of volume must be highlighted in "Bold" - Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume...The guidelines outlined in the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journal website should be highly respected.

Thank you very much for the comment. The references style was corrected according to the "Applied Sciences" style available in Mendeley. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Self-compacting concrete (SCC) was firstly proposed in 1988 [1], with the aim to provide durable structures. In the attempt to standardize the structure of an optimum SCC, many investigations were carried out since then.

The human factor involved in the preparation of SCC is based on the skills acquired over time. The subjectivism of the human factor must be replaced by mechanized standardized procedures.

To improve the workability of SCC, superplasticizer additive (SPA) is added. This paper proposes a new procedure to detect the optimum content of SPA in a given concrete mixture, based on mixer's power consumption. The proposed method must be used with the L-box test, as it not allows assessing of SCC’s segregation degree. Anyway, it allows the establishment of optimum percent of SPA in SCC by a single mixture, important savings being obtained in time and energy consumption.

In my opinion, the paper is well written and the experiments were planned to achieve maximum of information from minimum of work. I have just few suggestions for the authors.

1. Introduction section could be enriched, mentioning more references on related topic. At the end of this review, I recommended some supplementary works.

2. Chemical composition of employed SPA should be clearly specified. Is the SPA of polycarboxylate type, as suggested by literature review of Introduction section?

3. A graphical representation of interpolated values for mean power consumption on the three phases of the motor, presented next to Figure 13, would be welcome.

4. At line 262, "the maximum value of mixer power consumption" I think should be "the minimum value of mixer power consumption".

Supplementary references:

1.  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jact/1/1/1_1_5/_pdf

2. https://josbrouwers.bwk.tue.nl/publications/Journal36.pdf

3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620314098

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript applsci-782057

Determination of the optimum amount of superplasticizer additive for
self-compacting concrete

----

Dear Reviewers,

We greatly appreciate the opportunity you give us to improve the paper with your valuable comments. Here you can find the detailed comments and performed changes.

Best regards,

The authors

Responses to comments:
 
Reviewer #4
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) was firstly proposed in 1988 [1], with the aim to provide durable structures. In the attempt to standardize the structure of an optimum SCC, many investigations were carried out since then.
The human factor involved in the preparation of SCC is based on the skills acquired over time. The subjectivism of the human factor must be replaced by mechanized standardized procedures.
To improve the workability of SCC, superplasticizer additive (SPA) is added. This paper proposes a new procedure to detect the optimum content of SPA in a given concrete mixture, based on mixer's power consumption. The proposed method must be used with the L-box test, as it not allows assessing of SCC’s segregation degree. Anyway, it allows the establishment of optimum percent of SPA in SCC by a single mixture, important savings being obtained in time and energy consumption.
In my opinion, the paper is well written and the experiments were planned to achieve maximum of information from minimum of work. I have just few suggestions for the authors.
Many thanks for these encouraging comments. Replies to the comments are detailed in the following.
1. Introduction section could be enriched, mentioning more references on related topic. At the end of this review, I recommended some supplementary works.
Thank you very much form your comment. The introduction was enriched using the suggested references as follows:
“SPAs are considered to be the most important element in SCC. The progress, evolution and popularity of SCC in recent years has been driven by the progression in the chemical formulation of the latest SPA generation. The polycarboxylate type SPA makes it possible to achieve appropriate workability and flowability in concrete in spite of the high content of fines that these concretes have, making the mixture more viscous and reducing the amount of water by up to 40% [13]. In addition, it has been shown that the use of these SPAs enables the recycled concretes to minimise the property reduction caused by using these recycled aggregates [14–16]. Nonetheless, as Revilla-Cuesta et al. [17] concluded, the optimization of the water content is need to balance the extra water required by the high water absorption of the recycled aggregates and the reduction in the effective w/c ratio require to increase the mechanical properties of recycled concretes.”.
“As Okamura states “When self-compacting concrete becomes so widely used that it is seen as the “standard concrete” rather than a “special concrete,” we will have succeeded in creating durable and reliable concrete structures that require very little maintenance work.” [21]. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to have a design method for SSC as fast, economical and robust as possible. According to the method proposed by Okamura, the design of a self-compacting concrete begins with the determination of the SPA in mortars, after which, it is adjusted in concrete mix trials. Other methods are based on the definition of the saturation point determined in pastes. The advantage of this method is that the volume and cost of mortars and pastes is smaller than concrete. Melo et al. [22] proposed a method to optimize the SPA in self-compacting concretes by mean of tests performed in paste and mortars. Kwan et al. [23] concluded that the effect of SPA varies according to the w/C ratio and the fine/total aggregate ratio, making it even more difficult to design these SCC. Brouwers et al. [24] defined a design method for conventional strength SSC based in minimizing the volume of mortar. All these different methods which have been developed, according Ashish et al [25], could be divided in 6 categories namely empirical design method, statistical factorial design method, strength-based design method, rheology of paste method, particle packing method and Eco-SCC mixture design method.”.
2. Chemical composition of employed SPA should be clearly specified. Is the SPA of polycarboxylate type, as suggested by literature review of Introduction section?
The SPA used in this work is the “MasterGlenium® ACE 450 BASF” (https://assets.master-builders-solutions.basf.com/en-tr/eng_masterglenium-ace%20450-tds.pdf). It had not been included in the original version because it is a methodology that can be extrapolated to any SPA. However, you are right, for the best understanding of the paper it is advisable to add this information, so the following information was added (lines 109 to 110):
“The SPA used in this work is a polycarboxylic ether type superplasticizer called “MasterGlenium® ACE 450 BASF” [31].”.
3. A graphical representation of interpolated values for mean power consumption on the three phases of the motor, presented next to Figure 13, would be welcome.
Different interpolation adjustments were attempted without finding one that would extrapolate results consistent with those that can be expected at first glance, see the following image. For this reason, it was decided to add only the points connected by straight line segments.

4. At line 262, "the maximum value of mixer power consumption" I think should be "the minimum value of mixer power consumption".
You are right, it was a mistake, the text was changed to (lines 286 to 291):
A correlation was found between the results obtained using the Marsh cone test and the concrete mixer method. Through both methods it is possible to determine the same saturation point, SPA/C value from which either, the time, in the case of the Marsh cone test, or the minimum value of mixer power consumption, in the case of the concrete mixer method. In addition, through both methods, a significantly greater effect can be seen when the SPA/C is less than 1%, from which point the effect decreases until approximately 2%, where the effect is almost zero.
Supplementary references:
1.https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jact/1/1/1_1_5/_pdf
2.https://josbrouwers.bwk.tue.nl/publications/Journal36.pdf
3.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620314098

Author Response File: Author Response.docx