Review Reports
- Alhagie Bakary Ceesay1,* and
- Shingo Miyazawa2
Reviewer 1: Paul Lambert Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting manuscript on an increasingly important topic. My only concern is with regards to the English which requires some careful improvement. Technical English is a difficult medium but essential to ensure maximum impact and a wide readership.
To ensure the clarity a paper of this quality warrants, I recommend that the English is checked carefully.
I am sure the publishers will be able to assist you to find the necessary report. I look forward to seeing an updated manuscript in published form.
Author Response
Find attached reviewed manuscript based on recommendations of reviewers.
The entire text has been checked carefully and the English been improved.
Highlighted text is the modified sections of the manuscript according to reviewers comments.
An interesting manuscript on an increasingly important topic. My only concern is with regards to the English which requires some careful improvement. Technical English is a difficult medium but essential to ensure maximum impact and a wide readership.
To ensure the clarity a paper of this quality warrants, I recommend that the English is checked carefully.
Response: The entire text has been checked carefully and the English improved. We were able to improve on the technicality of the English used and we strongly believe that the idea is very well expressed.
I am sure the publishers will be able to assist you to find the necessary report. I look forward to seeing an updated manuscript in published form.
Response: Authors have used necessary report to update the manuscript for final publication. Certainly we shall contact the publishers for assistance if the reviewers still think that the language needs further check.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study presents experimental studies about the properties of concrete containing recycled tile aggregate. The following sections should be revised: 1.in table 2, the AE content for G+RTS w/c 50 is too high (38ml/m3). Please explain the reason. 2.in line 167, please add the equations of JCI equations. 3.in figure 20, the relative dynamic modulus of RTG+S firstly decrease and then increase. Please explain the reasons.Author Response
Find attached reviewed manuscript based on recommendations of reviewers.
The explanation for all concerns you raised is found in the highlighted text.
The entire text has been checked carefully and the English been improved.
Highlighted text is the modified sections of the manuscript according to reviewers comments.
This study presents experimental studies about the properties of concrete containing recycled tile aggregate. The following sections should be revised:
1.in table 2, the AE content for G+RTS w/c 50 is too high (38ml/m3). Please explain the reason.
Response: G+RTS concrete has relatively higher water content and higher dosage of AE. This is because RTS includes very large amount of fine particles which absorb AE agent on their surfaces [12]
2.in line 167, please add the equations of JCI equations.
Response: Predicted values for tensile strength obtained from Eq.(1), which was given in “Guidelines for Control of Cracking of Mass Concrete [20]” published by Japan Concrete Institute (JCI), are also shown in this figure. Predicted relationships with compressive strength of modulus of elasticity was obtained using Eq.(2) proposed by JCI Guidelines [20].
3.in figure 20, the relative dynamic modulus of RTG+S firstly decrease and then increase. Please explain the reasons.
Response: This is because the precise measurements of dynamic modulus of elasticity are often difficult on concrete specimens severely damaged by freezing and thawing cycles.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents the use of recycled roof tile aggregates in concrete, both in fine as well as coarse form. The topic is of interest and as per the need of time . However, The presentation is poor and seems to contain errors the way it is presented.
For example table 2 is not explained well and seems to have erroneous data (what is s/a, why was AEWR not used in all samples, Why was water content varied only for one case, how can slump be 71 x 68 and AE 38%).
The discussions to the results and changes are not explained well.
More scientific explanations (not only finding and support from other authors) are needed in the discussion section.
At the end, general conclusions are drawn and "ceramic" and "brick" replace the "roof tile" word.
Author Response
Find attached reviewed manuscript based on recommendations of reviewers.
The explanation for all concerns you raised is found in the highlighted text.
The entire text has been checked carefully and the English been improved.
Highlighted text is the modified sections of the manuscript according to reviewers comments.
The manuscript presents the use of recycled roof tile aggregates in concrete, both in fine as well as coarse form.
The presentation is poor
and data seems to contain errors the way it is presented.
For example table 2 is not explained well
and seems to have erroneous data (what is s/a, why was AEWR not used in
all samples, Why was water content varied only for one case, how can
slump be 71 x 68 and AE 38%).
Response: Recycled roof tile aggregate has higher water absorption, crushing values and abrasion values than the normal aggregate, but exhibits lower specific gravity and bulk density as shown in Table 2. G+RTS concrete has relatively higher water content and higher dosage of AE. This is because RTS includes very large amount of fine particles which absorb AE agent on their surfaces [12]. AEWR was used in concrete with w/c of 45% and 55%, while SP was used in concrete with w/c of 30% to obtain desirable workability at low water cement ratio. The addition of SP is the reason for the variation of water content in only one case. Moreover, the sand-coarse aggregate ratio (s/a), which is the ratio of fine to coarse aggregate by volume, was varied for different concrete mixes. For RTG+S concrete with a w/c ratio of 30%, slump flow (71.0x68.0) was measured due to high workability which is the diameter of concrete after subsidence.
The discussions to the results and changes are not explained well.
Response: This paper investigates the properties of recycled roof tile and its suitability for concrete production. Physical properties of recycled roof tile aggregate are compared to normal crushed stone. Similarly, mechanical properties and durability of concrete containing recycled roof tile are compared to normal aggregate concrete in order to evaluate the effect of recycled roof tile aggregate on the strength and durability of concrete. Obtained data are definitely discussed and when necessary, comparisons were made to publish papers to support or otherwise the experimental results and to give ground to our conclusion
The manuscript is not of acceptable quality in its present form. The reviewer submits for major revision.
Response: The entire text has been checked carefully and the English improved. We were able to improve on the technicality of the English language used and we strongly believe that the idea is very well expressed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is revised.
Author Response
English language and style have been revised and I strongly believe the new version is suitable for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
Responses take care the concerns raised earlier.
Author Response
English language and style have been thoroughly reviewed for technically and readability. I strongly believe that the new version is suitable for publication.