Mechanical and Durability Performance of Sustainable Concrete Incorporating Stone Dust as Sand Substitute and Sugarcane Bagasse Ash as Cement Replacement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a comprehensive investigation into the use of industrial by-products—stone dust (SD) as a full sand replacement and sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) as a partial cement replacement—in sustainable concrete. The study is well-structured, methodical, and addresses a relevant topic in line with global sustainability goals. The integration of mechanical, durability, microstructural, environmental, and economic analyses adds significant value to the work. The manuscript is generally well-written, though some sections could be improved for clarity and conciseness.
1.The abstract is informative but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the key findings more succinctly to highlight the novelty and practical implications.
2.The introduction adequately sets the context but could better emphasize the specific research gap this study addresses. A clearer statement of the study's unique contribution would strengthen this section.
3.The mix design table (Table 1) is clear, but the rationale for selecting the specific replacement levels (10–40%) could be briefly explained.
4.The description of the grinding process for SCBA is useful, but more details on the grinding efficiency or energy consumption would be valuable for reproducibility.
5.Some figures (e.g., Figures 8–12) are referenced but not included in the submitted text. Please ensure all figures are provided in the final version.
6.The discussion of microstructural analysis (SEM/EDS) is detailed but could be better linked to the mechanical and durability results.
7.The section on heavy metal analysis is a strength, but the environmental implications could be discussed more broadly (e.g., leaching potential under field conditions).
8.The conclusion is comprehensive but somewhat repetitive. Consider condensing it to highlight the key takeaways and recommendations for future work or practical application.
9.Minor grammatical errors and typos are present (e.g., “Sugar cane” vs. “Sugarcane,” “stone dusts” on page 14). A thorough proofreading is recommended.
10.Ensure all references are correctly formatted and consistently cited.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Reviewer: 1
|
Page |
Line |
Comment |
Respond |
|
1 |
17-31 |
Comment 1: The abstract is informative but could be more concise. Consider summarizing the key findings more succinctly to highlight the novelty and practical implications. |
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The abstract has been revised to make it more concise, emphasizing the key findings, novelty, and practical implications. |
|
2 |
44-100 |
Comment 2: The introduction adequately sets the context but could better emphasize the specific research gap this study addresses. A clearer statement of the study's unique contribution would strengthen this section. |
We have revised the introduction to highlight the research gap more clearly and explicitly state the study’s unique contribution to sustainable concrete technology. |
|
4 |
140-152 |
Comment 3: The mix design table (Table 1) is clear, but the rationale for selecting the specific replacement levels (10–40%) could be briefly explained. |
The rationale for selecting replacement levels (10–40%) has been added in Section 2.2, explaining that these ranges were chosen based on prior studies indicating optimal reactivity and workability within this range. |
|
6 |
112-119 |
Comment 4: The description of the grinding process for SCBA is useful, but more details on the grinding efficiency or energy consumption would be valuable for reproducibility. |
Details regarding grinding time, energy input, and particle size distribution of SCBA have been added to Section 2.3 to improve reproducibility. |
|
|
|
Comment 5: Some figures (e.g., Figures 8–12) are referenced but not included in the submitted text. Please ensure all figures are provided in the final version. |
All missing figures (Figures 8–12) have been reinserted and cross-checked for accuracy and clarity. |
|
20,21,22,23 |
585-586, 637-640, 681-683, 688-689 |
Comment 6: The discussion of microstructural analysis (SEM/EDS) is detailed but could be better linked to the mechanical and durability results. |
The discussion has been expanded to explicitly correlate SEM/EDS findings with the observed mechanical and durability trends, demonstrating how microstructural densification supports performance results. |
|
23 |
720-727 |
Comment 7: The section on heavy metal analysis is a strength, but the environmental implications could be discussed more broadly (e.g., leaching potential under field conditions). |
We have expanded this section to include a broader discussion of potential leaching behavior under field conditions and compared results to relevant environmental standards. |
|
24-25 |
778-817 |
Comment 8: The conclusion is comprehensive but somewhat repetitive. Consider condensing it to highlight the key takeaways and recommendations for future work or practical application. |
The conclusion has been condensed to emphasize the principal findings, novelty, and future work recommendations. Redundant statements were removed. |
|
|
|
Comment 9: Minor grammatical errors and typos are present (e.g., “Sugarcane” vs. “Sugarcane,” “stone dusts” on page 14). A thorough proofreading is recommended. |
The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and corrected for grammar, spelling, and consistency. |
|
|
|
Comment 10: Ensure all references are correctly formatted and consistently cited. |
All references have been checked and reformatted according to the journal’s guidelines, ensuring consistency and completeness. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript evaluates concrete incorporating ground sugarcane bagasse ash and stone dust as sustainable materials. It reports that a 20% GSCBA replacement with full sand substitution achieves adequate mechanical performance while reducing cost and emissions. Authors need to justify some concerns before it can be accepted for publication.
- The literature review fails to critically situate this study's GSCBA characteristics (e.g., particle size, LOI) against the broader body of published research, limiting the understanding of how its properties influence performance.
-
The experimental design lacks justification for the selected GSCBA replacement levels (0, 10, 20, 30, 40%). The rationale for these increments must be explicitly stated.
-
The manuscript acknowledges the stone dust does not meet ASTM C33 grading but omits a quantitative analysis of how its off-spec gradation specifically impacted mix rheology or mechanical properties.
-
The hydraulic cement's key characteristics are inadequately described. The omission of its specific type and compound composition prevents proper contextualization of the binder's reactivity.
-
The modulus of elasticity data should be critically compared against codified predictive models (e.g., ACI 318) for the measured strengths, not just presented as a self-consistent trend.
-
The environmental assessment uses secondary emission factors without justification. The provenance and applicability of these factors, especially for GSCBA, require validation.
-
The abrasion resistance discussion is superficial. It must address the mechanistic role of the softer, porous GSCBA particles on the wear resistance of the composite matrix.
-
The promotion of the 40% GSCBA mix as viable is overstated, given its significantly compromised early-age strength and elevated permeability. This trade-off should be explicitly framed as a major limitation for structural applications.
-
The manuscript requires thorough language editing to correct recurring grammatical errors and improve clarity.
Author Response
|
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: Reviewer: 2
|
|||
|
Page |
Line |
Comment |
Respond |
|
1-2 |
44-100 |
Comment 1: The literature review fails to critically situate this study's GSCBA characteristics (e.g., particle size, LOI) against the broader body of published research, limiting the understanding of how its properties influence performance. |
The literature review has been revised to include a critical comparison of GSCBA properties (particle size, LOI, chemical composition) with previously reported studies, clarifying how these characteristics influence concrete performance. |
|
|
140-152 |
Comment 2: The experimental design lacks justification for the selected GSCBA replacement levels (0, 10, 20, 30, 40%). The rationale for these increments must be explicitly stated. |
The rationale for selecting replacement levels (10–40%) has been added in Section 2.2, explaining that these ranges were chosen based on prior studies indicating optimal reactivity and workability within this range. |
|
9 |
263-271 |
Comment 3: The manuscript acknowledges the stone dust does not meet ASTM C33 grading but omits a quantitative analysis of how its off-spec gradation specifically impacted mix rheology or mechanical properties. |
The information has been added in Section 3.2.2. |
|
5 |
131-134 |
Comment 4: The hydraulic cement's key characteristics are inadequately described. The omission of its specific type and compound composition prevents proper contextualization of the binder's reactivity. |
The properties of the cement, including type (Ordinary Portland Cement Type I) have been added to Section 2.1 to improve contextual understanding. |
|
15 |
450-456 |
Comment 5: The modulus of elasticity data should be critically compared against codified predictive models (e.g., ACI 318) for the measured strengths, not just presented as a self-consistent trend. |
The modulus of elasticity results have been compared with ACI 318 predictions. |
|
24-25 |
759-770 |
Comment 6: The environmental assessment uses secondary emission factors without justification. The provenance and applicability of these factors, especially for GSCBA, require validation. |
We have clarified the sources and validation of the emission factors, referencing appropriate LCI databases and previous SCBA studies to justify their applicability. |
|
17-18 |
539-552 |
Comment 7: The abrasion resistance discussion is superficial. It must address the mechanistic role of the softer, porous GSCBA particles on the wear resistance of the composite matrix. |
The discussion on abrasion resistance has been revised to explain the mechanistic effect of porous GSCBA particles and the resulting microstructure on wear resistance. |
|
|
In conclusion |
Comment 8: The promotion of the 40% GSCBA mix as viable is overstated, given its significantly compromised early-age strength and elevated permeability. This trade-off should be explicitly framed as a major limitation for structural applications. |
The discussion has been modified to acknowledge this limitation, framing the 40% mix as suitable for non-structural or low-load applications. |
|
|
|
Comment 9: The manuscript requires thorough language editing to correct recurring grammatical errors and improve clarity. |
The entire manuscript has been carefully edited for grammatical accuracy, coherence, and readability. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper can be published.
