Overview of the Development of 3D-Printing Concrete: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper report a reviwe of the recent development of 3D printing using concrete material.
The work is well organised and structured. The Figures and their description are well discussed; the conclusions are supported by the reported conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents the state of the art of 3d printing of concrete elements. it is quite a comprehensive presentation with many interesting aspects. Unfortunately, the article contains many editing errors and a lot of repetition of the same conclusions or even truisms. I recommend that the authors re-read the article carefully and put their conclusions in order. The article can be accepted for publication as a review article but after reconstruction and ordering. There are so many editorial errors like repetition of words, periods in the middle of sentences etc. that it is impossible to enumerate them all.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article,thank you for your comment on our manuscript entitled "Overview of the development of 3D printing concrete:A Review" (ID: applsci-1361427).These suggestions are very valuable for the revision and improvement of our paper, very helpful, and also have important guiding significance for our research.
We carefully studied your suggestions, and carefully revised the paper one by one according to your suggestions. The revised parts are marked in the paper with MS Word revisions, as follows:
Point 1:the article contains many editing errors and a lot of repetition of the same conclusions or even truisms. I recommend that the authors re-read the article carefully and put their conclusions in order.
Response 1: In response to the structure of the article, the article first introduces the basic principles and technology of 3D printing concrete. Then, from the four aspects of material properties, preparation technology, printing parameters and evaluation standards. Finally, summarize the existing problems and look forward to the development prospects. The article expands and introduces according to this structure.In response to the problem of repeated conclusions, for material properties, although there are differences between material fluidity, extrudability, buildability, setting time, mechanical properties and durability, they are also closely related. They affect each other and sometimes affect the performance of concrete together, and similar conclusions will appear, but these conclusions are also somewhat different.
Point 2: There are so many editorial errors like repetition of words, periods in the middle of sentences etc.
Response 2: In response to editing errors, the full text was revised and checked.
Finally, thank you again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and revising our revised paper again, and hope that we can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General comment:
This review paper discusses the latest development of 3D printing of concrete. The overall organization of manuscript is well-thought and comprehensive discussions have been made in each section. However, the reviewer thinks that the manuscript can be improved further if the following queries are addressed.
Specific comments:
- Figure 1 has poor resolution. suggest improving the figure resolution
- Section 3.1.1 has a title "liquidity" but "fluidity" in the text. Suggest to be more consistent when using the term.
- the font size of figure 8 is too small.
- There are many work on the development of print head design for cement printing. Suggest discussing those work as well.
- In the introduction where the authors discussed 3D printing, there has been a lack of references since there are many prominent work and area that have been listed. Suggest citing the following articles on 3D printing for the benefit of the readers.
- Yap, C. Y., Chua, C. K., Dong, Z. L., Liu, Z. H., Zhang, D. Q., Loh, L. E., & Sing, S. L. (2015). Review of selective laser melting: Materials and applications. Applied physics reviews, 2(4), 041101.
- Potential of Printed Electrodes for Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS): Toward Membrane Fouling Detection. (2021). Advanced Electronic Materials, 2100043.
- G. L. Goh, S. Agarwala, and W. Y. Yeong: 'High Resolution Aerosol Jet Printing of Conductive Ink for Stretchable Electronics', Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Progress in Additive Manufacturing (PRO-AM), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2018, 109-114.
- For section 4.1 and 4.4, can the authors come up with tables to consolidate the information so that the readers can compare the different material and follow the manuscript easily?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article,thank you for your comment on our manuscript entitled "Overview of the development of 3D printing concrete:A Review" (ID: applsci-1361427).These suggestions are very valuable for the revision and improvement of our paper, very helpful, and also have important guiding significance for our research.
We carefully studied your suggestions, and carefully revised the paper one by one according to your suggestions. The revised parts are marked in the paper with MS Word revisions, as follows:
Point 1:Figure 1 has poor resolution. suggest improving the figure resolution
Response 1: In response to the problem of poor resolution in Figure 1, the text in Figure 1 has been re-adjusted to improve the resolution.
Point 2:Section 3.1.1 has a title "liquidity" but "fluidity" in the text. Suggest to be more consistent when using the term.
Response 2: In response to the inconsistency between the "liquidity" title and the terminology used in the article, the article and title were revised, terminology expression was unified, and the full text was checked to avoid such errors again.
Point 3:the font size of figure 8 is too small.
Response 3: In view of the problem that the text in Figure 8 is too small, the text in Figure 8 has been appropriately adjusted to increase the font size and resolution.
Point 4:There are many work on the development of print head design for cement printing. Suggest discussing those work as well.
Response 4: To increase the discussion of the development and design of the 3D printing concrete print head, the related literature was read, the structure and design of the print head were discussed and summarized, and the comparison was made. It has been placed in section 5.1.
Point 5:In the introduction where the authors discussed 3D printing, there has been a lack of references since there are many prominent work and area that have been listed. Suggest citing the following articles on 3D printing for the benefit of the readers.
Response 5: In response to adding citations in the introduction, discussing the outstanding work and fields of 3D printing, because the article mainly introduces the material properties, preparation technology, printing parameters and evaluation criteria of 3D printing concrete, etc.The 3D printing technology has not been elaborated too much, so there has not been too much citation.
Point 6:For section 4.1 and 4.4, can the authors come up with tables to consolidate the information so that the readers can compare the different material and follow the manuscript easily?
Response 6: Aiming at the problem of combining the information with the table in section 4.1 and 4.4, the table is drawn from the three aspects of material name, function, and document tracking, so that readers can compare different materials and find related documents.
Finally, thank you again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and revising our revised paper again, and hope that we can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
