Development of Aggregate Skeleton–Cementitious Paste-Coating Pervious Concrete
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe abstract must include numerical key findings
the limitation of the study must be provided
total number of samples must be added
the standard deviation or variance of test results must be added
comment on the effect of water to binder ratio on flow instead of water to cement ratio
comment if any supplementary cementitious materials to be used, any difference on the performance? if yes why.
comment on the site performance of the produced composites.
future implications must be added
Author Response
Thank you so much for the review effort. Please see the response in the attached files. Thanks again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The composition of the concrete structure should be given with references.
2- The sections written as instructions in the mix proportion section should be explained as the process performed.
3- It is recommended to cite the source for determining the water reducer ratio.
4- Is there a source for the separation made when creating groups?
5- The ACPC production process should be cited.
6- The final states of the mixtures listed in Table 1 should also be presented to the reader with a drawn figure.
7- The reason for testing packing density according to the British Standard should be stated in the text.
8- The section attempted to be explained in Section 3.2 is unclear. Photographs from different angles or scanning microscope images should be provided for clarity.
9- There are two Sections 3.2.
10- The choice made according to Table 2 should be detailed.
11- The test results are not clear from the photographs in Figure 4; one of them appears dark. For all photographs, they should be control and sectioned into cross-sectional photographs.
12. Additionally, the analysis results of all groups should be presented in a table.
13. Repetitive, meaningful sentences should be removed from the summary and conclusion sections. This will ensure clearer expressions for the reader.
Author Response
Thank you so much for the review effort. Please see the response in the attached files. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSUMMARY
The article is relevant and interesting for modern coatings. The authors studied an interesting concrete technology, where traditional casting is replaced by another approach - a layer of aggregates is made, and then cement paste is applied. This is an interesting method, because it leads to savings of certain resources spent on production.
This article has scientific novelty, because the authors presented all the sequential actions in great detail and thoroughly in the form of photographs and detailed reports.
The article looks interesting and definitely deserves support. However, several comments should be corrected. Here they are.
COMMENTS
1. It would be nice if the authors, in addition to the problem of costs in concrete production, also showed the scientific problem in the abstract. For example, that the structure and properties of such cast concretes have not been sufficiently studied.
2. Also, the abstract does not sufficiently show the result for real objects. It would be nice if the authors mentioned in which construction objects this technology would be most suitable or safe.
3. The authors provided only 5 keywords. This is not enough. It is necessary to provide at least 7 keywords so that the article is more accessible in search. In addition, the keyword "coating" seems unsuccessful. This is the name of the journal, so I would like to see a more appropriate term for this study here.
4. The "Introduction" section provides an overview of the state of the problem, but it is not large enough. Only 25 scientific papers were analyzed, and many of them are simply listed, such as on line 40. The review and analysis of the literature should be expanded by adding a review of 10 more sources over the past 5 years. In some countries, such concrete is called large-pore concrete or frame concrete. The authors need to work with the literature in more detail.
5. It would be nice if the authors presented the research methodology in the form of a block diagram. It should provide in detail the variable recipe and technological factors, the parameters of the manufactured samples, and the indicators of the resulting concrete.
6. The article lacks photographs taken with a microscope. Do the authors have the opportunity to add such photographs? It would be interesting to see the phase boundary between the large aggregate and the hardened cement paste.
7. Some graphs do not look good enough. For example, these are Figures 10, 12, and 14. Here, it would probably be necessary to present column diagrams. This would be more correct.
8. It would be nice if the authors provided a separate "Discussion" paragraph, in which they would compare in detail the results of their research with the results of similar castable concretes. Also in this paragraph, risks and limitations should be presented, because the technology is not yet universal and can lead to the formation of voids not filled with cement paste, which will affect the quality and safety of concrete. All this should be discussed in more detail.
9. As already mentioned, the list of references should be supplemented. It is necessary to analyze at least 10 additional sources over the past 5 years. Many interesting studies have been conducted on concretes of various structures. The authors need to present a picture of this problem in a little more detail.
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Thank you so much for the review effort. Please see the response in the attached file. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research is highly relevant and innovative, in line with the "Sponge City" concept, to drain into water, as well as to be used in the future as, for example, road surfacing to mitigate the heat island effect.
Some notes:
- Since aggregates form stone-to-stone contact points, which affect the strength of the resulting porous structure, it would be necessary to characterize the aggregates used (LA, shape, texture…).
- What is the uncertainty of the results obtained?
- Freezing and thawing are critical for a porous structure, so future studies should include an assessment of frost resistance.8 Prolonged exposure to water filtration or freeze-thaw cycles will demonstrate the adhesion between the aggregate and the cement paste.
- Increasing environmental efficiency and improving the shrinkage inherent in concrete could be achieved by using special cements containing rice husk ash, for example, referring to DOI:DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124385. Because special cements or additives will have to be sought to regulate the properties of porous concrete.
Author Response
Thank you so much for the review effort. Please see the response in the attached file. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExperimental results should be organized according to scientific publication format. Photographs taken from different distances and angles should be edited.
Author Response
Please see the response in the attached file. Thank you for the review effort.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have corrected all comments and improved the manuscript. The reviewer has no more comments. The manuscript can be published.
Author Response
Thank you for the kind review effort.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
