Durability of Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement (GRC) Containing a High Proportion of Pozzolans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some aspects that need to be improved.

English needs to be checked.

Introduction needs to be improved. Some more recent references need to be added with reference to the state of the art.

Lines 32-45 need to be improved.

The novelty of the paper needs to be better indicated. The scope of the paper needs to be better elucidated.

Materials and Methods Section needs to be improved. Lines 126-129 need to be moved after the description of materials and need to be better correlated with Table 3 . Lines 126-141 are not clear and need to be improved. Materials need to be better indicated. Symbols need to be better explained in the text. Tables 1-3 need to be better explained in the text. Characterization of raw materials (i.e., Table 4) needs to be moved before the description of Table 3. Methods description needs to be improved. It is also not clear how many specimens were tested for each test and if the dimension of specimens were the same for all the tests.

Results and discussion Section needs to be improved. The same order used to describe the tests needs to be followed in this Section. Standard deviation values need to be added in all the obtained results. Figures 1 and 2 need to have the values on the x axes in the same order to be better compared. Figure 7 needs to be better explained. It is not clear why C- ACC is not present in Section 3.2. Figures 7, 8, 10 and 12 need to be enlarged.

Pages 12 and 13: a check of dimension of characters is expected.

Conclusions need to be improved and better summarized.

Author Response

Please, see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article contains interesting laboratory tests on fiber glass cement composites with pozzolanic admixtures. Strength tests are a valuable part of the article of composites subjected to wetting drying tests in a water. Below are some comments and suggestions:

1. In the introduction, it should be indicated the industries in which glass fiber reinforcement cement with high proportion of pozzolans was used. If there are no such literature items, then I would suggest to highlight this issue (add two or three sentences at the end of the first chapter).
2. Line 123, the expansion for the SSF abbreviation should be written in parentheses.
3. In the second chapter, the same units should be used, for example mm: lines 126-127 and 132.
4. Lines 160, 163, 182, 189, 194, 200, 223-224, 305, 313, 336,405, the degree Celsius sign should be corrected - without underlining.
5. In chapter 3.1.2 the formulas used to calculate the modulus of ruptura - bending strength and toughness should be presented.
6. The table inside figure 9 should be a separate part.
7. Figures 11 and 13, it should be given the full name for M, which are in brackets.
8. For the load-displacement characteristics presented in Figure 14, it should be written what was the load rate of the samples.
9. In chapter 3.2.1, reference should be made to the results of other researchers in order to compare the results in the form of a discussion.
10. In the Summary, one conclusion should be written relating to the applicability of the research results in industry.

Author Response

Please, see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-1644184

Type: Article

Title: Durability of glass fiber-reinforced cement (GRC) containing a high proportion of pozzolans

Authors: Luis Felipe Lalinde, Ana Mellado, María Victoria Borrachero, José Monzó, Jordi Payá

Section: Civil Engineering

Special Issue: Sustainability in Novel Construction Composites

General comments:

The title and subject matter of the paper are very interesting and could catch the readers' attention. The addition of pozzolans to limit the degradation of the glass fibre is an aspect that brings novelty to this research and that should be taken into account.

Specific comments are made to the authors below:

The way in which the authors have structured the Abstract is not right and may lead to confusion. The following is recommended: A brief introduction (the current one can be kept), a clear statement of the objectives pursued with this work; a quick mention of the methods used; a brief statement of the results obtained, and a statement on how these results could be used. Please check.

Lines 17 to 19: Please revise the following sentence: "It is a mixture of fine aggregates, Portland cement and water, with the addition of 3-5% by mass of alkali-resistant glass fibre"... The argument is ambiguous, it seems that the authors are referring to glass fibre reinforced cement on the one hand, while on the other hand they seem to be talking about a mortar. Please check.

Lines 22 and 23: Please specify which type of pozzolan has been used: fly ash or silica fume...Check.

Please explain in more detail the process of grinding and obtaining the final particle size of the sample. Check.

Table 2.There is a possible error in the heading of the left column (MATERIAL). Check.

Line 126. Authors are encouraged to begin this subsection as follows: "2.1. Materials". Check.

Line 156. Authors are encouraged to begin this subsection as follows: "2.2. Methods". Check.

Lines 161 and 162. The spelling of the "ºC" is incorrect and it should be separated from the number. Please check throughout the document.

Lines 220 to 224. This paragraph plays no role in this subsection, it is understood that the explanation given here has to be in the subsection "Methods", not in "Results and discussion". Please remove.

Lines 299 to 301. The word "Figure" should be standardised instead of "Fig". Check.

Figures 4, 5 and 6. The scales are very difficult to see. Please check.

Lines 204 to 208. These methods are poorly described. The authors need to be more precise in describing the equipment and test procedures. Please check.

Other comments:

-The authors do not make a discussion of the results obtained, they only state these results, which makes it a mere technical report.

-Nowhere in the "Results and discussion" section are bibliographical references used. This is a serious error, as the authors do not contrast their results with those of other researchers, which prevents them from establishing whether their conclusions are true or not. Authors are encouraged to rewrite this Section, adding a significant number of bibliographic citations. Please check.

References" section:

-The authors use some outdated references. It is emphasised that the subject matter of this research has been extensively researched, which has generated a lot of very topical information. It is recommended that the authors do a serious job of bibliographic compilation and update the references in the corresponding section. Please check

Author Response

Please, see the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have provided satisfactory answers to all the questions formulated.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have provided satisfactory answers to all the questions formulated.

There has been a positive improvement in the work.

My congratulations to the authors, and good luck in their future research.