Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of Graded EPS–Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The EPS with two particle sizes selected: 1 mm and 5 mm. Why?
2- Give the details about artificial sand.
3- Cement or Epoxy? Which is the binder? Please clarify in the Materials section
4- Line 122-125; The expansion of the experimental plan based on the previous studies does not bring novelty to the research. Please explain the novelty of your work.
5- It's better to use the EPS in various varrying size. Two size are not enough to have the good matrix. Please try the new experiments with muliple particle size
6- Please add more experiments by using EPS beads in varrying size and analyze the impact of these beads along with fibers
7- Please elaborate the novelty of the research work
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. It is our pleasure to answer your questions. Please refer to the documentation for more information (reply 1).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is addressed to investigate the behavior of graded EPS teel fiber reinforced concrete, by means of experimental tests. At first, the mis design is presented. Then mechanical properties obtained from laboratory tests are illustrated and commented.
The work presented is really interesting and well structured. However, before the publication a revision should be made according to the comments below reported.
Point 1. In the introduction the novelty of the paper should be better highlighted.
Point 2. To date there several works addressed at developing eco-friendly materials to be applied within the constructions including also recycled components. Among the others, Authors may consider the following works:
· Cardinale, T., D’Amato, M., Sulla, R., & Cardinale, N. (2021). Mechanical and physical characterization of papercrete as new eco-friendly construction material. Applied Sciences, 11(3), 1011.
· Ferrándiz-Mas, V.; Bond, T.; García-Alcocel, E.; Cheeseman, C.R. Lightweight mortars containing expanded polystyrene and paper sludge ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 61, 285–292.
Point 3. In order to boost the paper content within the scientific literature, Authors are invited in better explain where the innovative material proposed may be applied in practice.
Point 4. Figure 6 should be better explained in the text.
Point 5. Authors are invited in better clarify how was derived the bending failure reported in Figure 7. Is it a literature behavior, or else it was observed starting from the experimental results conducted? Please comment on this.
Point 6. Load-deflection curves of Figure 8 do not significantly change by varying the steel fiber percentage. Why? Please comment on this.
Point 7. Reviewer does not properly understand the conversion formula reported in the section 3.5. Moreover, it seems that the estimation plotted in the Figure 10 does not agree with the experimental values. Why? Please comment on this.
Point 8. Conclusions should be rewritten just reporting the main outcomes of the work presented. Please, revise.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We will be happy to answer your questions. Please refer to Reply 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe use of steelfibers is described.
However the reason for selection of steel over other polymeric fibers is not described.
Also literature regarding natural origin fibers, synthtic fibers must be included.
The properties of steel fiber needs to be analysed and included in the research.
In conclusion the environmental impats and durability ofsteel fibers should be discussed vis-a-vis other types of fillers or fiber sof polymeric nature.
refer to relevant literature in the area of severaL TYPES OF fibers in concrete.
A table comparing all such fibers should be included in the materials section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback on the manuscript. We will be happy to answer your questions. Please refer to Reply 3. The revised paper also be uploaded again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved based on the previous comment. Therefore, it can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper has been revised according to the comments provided. Therefore it may be considered for the publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCan be accepted
