Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study is good and interesting, but not well-written.

Throughout the manuscript, long and complex sentences are used. It would be better if such sentences are broken down into smaller simple sentences. Otherwise, it would be hard for the readers to understand. An example is given below:

Line 111-113: “For the analysis of characteristics by concrete filling ratio, the change in concrete filling ratio and physical properties before and after the foaming agent treatment according to the same concrete filling amount was analyzed.” This sentence is long and is giving confusing message.

Line 12-130:” Also, bending strength was measured according to the curing period by applying fast-setting cement, and durability was evaluated considering the use environment of seawater, freezing-thawing, and resistance to acid and alkali of 130 GCCM.” Correct the underlined segment.

Fast-hardening and Fast-setting terminology are simultaneously being used. It would be better if one terminology is used. Setting is change of phase and hardening is gain of strength.

Throughout the manuscript, it is written “foaming agent was treated”. This is not correct; instead foaming agent was mixed in concrete or concrete was treated with foaming agent.

Title: OK

Abstract: Brief and comprehensive

Introduction:

Line 29-30: Correct the sentence, “When a crack occurs, concrete propagates rapidly and is eventually destroyed.” Concrete does not propagate; in fact, cracks propagate.

Line 34-35: fiber-reinforced concrete (TRC); Replace fiber or T with F.

Literature survey is too brief.

Experimental: Methodology will be more appropriate word in place of Experimental. 

 

Figure 2: A table is embedded, which is not at all understandable.

Table 1: For a civil engineer/concrete technologist, it is difficult to understand these specifications. No detail is provided about the specs.

Figure 3: Give a space in “adhesiveand”.

Line 105-108: Kindly revise the sentence by mentioning that foaming agent was added according to the volume changes.

Table 2: What is blowing agent? Is it the foaming agent already mentioned?

Line 118-120: Does fast-setting cement improve the workability?

Line 123: Use only one verb; either measure or apply.

Line 131-132: “Durability was determined by comparing mechanical properties with advanced products.” This sentence is technically wrong. As durability is not determined by comparing something.

Line 137: Kindly provide a reference to “IT504 from Tinius Olsen”.

Line 151-152: Kindly elaborate the materials used for creating acidic and alkaline environment.

 

Results and Discussion:

Line 161-163: “During curing of concrete, there was a problem that the middle part rises due to the foaming agent treatment, and the volume change rate was measured by the amount of water filled with water as much as the same volume.” Make the underlined segment simple. This is confusing and unclear.

Line 184: Kindly do not compound curing with shrinkage. In fact, curing reduces shrinkage. Use concrete shrinkage.

Line 189-191: “As a result, it was found that the cross-section reduction phenomenon due to concrete shrinkage during hydration was improved depending on the foaming agent was treated at the same concrete content.” Correct the underlined part of the sentence.

Kindly use “foaming agent” throughout in place of “blowing agent”.

Table 5: The comparison between the control specimens and the specimens with foaming agent is not provided. Although, it is mentioned in the text that the control specimens have higher bending strength (Line 196-197).

Figure 6: The figure is blurry. Also, it is difficult to recognize the curves 530, 620 and 710 at first glance.

Figure 7: Kindly change the captions (a) and (b). You may write as “with reinforcing fibers” and “without reinforcing fibers”.

Enhanced performance in seawater and freezing-thawing needs reasoning.

Conclusions:

It would be better if the conclusions are segregated, numbered or bulleted. They should be written in the form of simple sentences and based on the results.

 

 

 

They can be seen in the comments to the authors. 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the content.

The answer has been reflected and rewritten in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the content.

The answer has been reflected and rewritten in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes the manufacturing and examination of a double raschel structure design suitable for GCCM (Geosynthetic Cementitious Composite Mat).

 

The scope is adequate, the methods are appropriate, although the result presentation needs to be improved.

 

The manuscript is not well prepared with poor English usage, careless mistakes, e.g. both TRC and FRC are used as abbreviation of the same term.

 

The reproducibility is compromised by confusing methods introduction, the details of the adhesive used has not been given; paragraph Line123 is confusing and please rewrite.

 

Hypothesis has not been introduced properly. The discussion is mere test and report and lacks an overall summary before Conclusion.

Statistical analyses have not been done to verify any claim of “improvement”. The values are reported as absolute numbers rather than mean (standard deviation).

 

Thus, a major revision is necessary.

 

Points for consideration:

Line 29, how concrete is destroyed should be detailed. Recent publication explaining the may be cited doi: 10.1039/D2CP03918D

Line 41, “between fabric and fabric layers due to the 2D structure” needs to be explained.

The opposite term of inner should be outer.

Fig. 1, in text there are reference [11-13], however in caption there is none. Proper referencing is necessary.

Line163, “…the amount of water filled with water as much as the same volume…” please rewrite.

Table 4, surface texture only applies to 3 and 9? How about the rest?

“Sample-C1~C3 did not add a foaming agent…” how can sample do something on their own?

L183-185, “was confirmed” appears twice.

Fig. 6, hard to discern which lines are 530 and 620 because they are plotted with the same line type. Please replot and put the 2 panels side by side.  

Fig. 7, blowing agent treatment and reinforcing fiber are not consistent. In the text please also use consistent terms.

Table 6, “pend”?

Table 7-9 should be combined.

Although the titles states “Engineering Properties”, this term has changed to physical properties in the text.

under Environmental Conditions is not precise, should be simulated Environmental Conditions

 

extensive editing

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out the content.

The answer has been reflected and rewritten in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Having gone through the revised manuscript, I have noticed that the authors addressed most of my comments. Therefore, the revised paper can be published.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement.
I genuinely appreciate your effort and understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not revised the manuscript well.

First, there was near-zero effort put in the "response to comments" document. The authors must provide a detailed point to point response to each comment, highlighting exactly where (page, section) the content has been modified. On the contrary, many suggestions have not been considered nor "reflected and rewritten in the text."

Second, some Tables contain no content. There are too many tables with very little contents that should be combined into bigger and fewer tables.

What about statistical analyses? Please address this comment.

In addition, 25 references are very few for a 13 page full page length article. Are you sure you can not learn more from the literature and that all your statements are original that you do not need to refer to the sources?

The bottom line is that the reviewers have volunteered their precious time and expertise to help improve the manuscript and their comments should not be taken lightly.

fine

Author Response

The authors have not revised the manuscript well.

First, there was near-zero effort put in the "response to comments" document. The authors must provide a detailed point to point response to each comment, highlighting exactly where (page, section) the content has been modified. On the contrary, many suggestions have not been considered nor "reflected and rewritten in the text."

Second, some Tables contain no content. There are too many tables with very little contents that should be combined into bigger and fewer tables.

What about statistical analyses? Please address this comment.

In addition, 25 references are very few for a 13 page full page length article. Are you sure you cannot learn more from the literature and that all your statements are original that you do not need to refer to the sources?

The bottom line is that the reviewers have volunteered their precious time and expertise to help improve the manuscript and their comments should not be taken lightly.

(Answer)

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement. I sincerely appreciate your feedback.

Firstly, I sincerely apologize for thinking that I provided you with insincere answers regarding the content you took the time to review.

I sincerely apologize once again for my careless response that caused discomfort.

You might not believe it sounds like an excuse, but I truly never took the opinions of the reviewers lightly.

I deeply apologize for the insufficiency of my initial response, despite your busy schedule, which led you to review it twice. I genuinely appreciate your effort and understanding.

Points for consideration:

• First, there was near-zero effort put in the "response to comments" document. The authors must provide a detailed point to point response to each comment, highlighting exactly where (page, section) the content has been modified. On the contrary, many suggestions have not been considered nor "reflected and rewritten in the text

(Answer) Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement. I appreciate your feedback. If the points made by the reviewers were duplicated or contradictory, I took special care in this aspect and rewrote the sections. I apologize for not including responses to the comments you reviewed, as I was working on revising the manuscript to address the overall English-related modifications suggested by the reviewer. I appreciate your understanding regarding this matter.

• Second, some Tables contain no content. There are too many tables with very little contents that should be combined into bigger and fewer tables.

(Answer) Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement. I appreciate your feedback. I have revised and reworded the content as follows, considering the points you indicated. I have made the modification to the title of section 3.4. as "Bending Strength of Double Raschel GCCM with Curing Time". I have revised the title of section 3.5. to "Bending Strength under Environmental Conditions" and summarized the content from sections 3.5 to 3.7 accordingly.

• What about statistical analyses? Please address this comment.

(Answer) Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement. I appreciate your feedback. Since there is no correlation between the bending strength values obtained from each experimental condition, Therefore, statistical analysis was not conducted. Instead, I have represented the average bending strength value from five measurements for each individual experimental condition.

• In addition, 25 references are very few for a 13 page full page length article. Are you sure you can not learn more from the literature and that all your statements are original that you do not need to refer to the sources?

(Answer) Thank you very much for pointing out the areas that needed improvement. I appreciate your feedback. I have supplemented the references as you pointed out in that section. you for pointing out the content, and the answer has been reflected and rewritten in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx