A Promising Mortar Produced with Seawater and Sea Sand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors conducted to explore the essential reactivity of the mortar produced with seawater (SW) and sea sand (SS). The physicochemical-mechanical experimental art was established in the study to interpret the mortar performance. The uniaxial compression tests (UCT) were carried out in the study to explore the macro-strength and macro-damage characteristics of the mortar at various ages, which reported the mechanical properties. Moreover, the physicochemical behaviors of the mortar were investigated by the energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS), X-ray difraction (XRD) and the thermal-field emission scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which helped understand the physicochemical mechanism. The relation between the mechanical properties and physicochemical mechanism were discussed in the paper.
I submit this report about the general comments and reviewing details of the paper. First, the Abstract is not giving an understanding of the paper. Therefore, the abstract should be revised with including the findings and novelty of the research. Authors should clarify their purpose. Authors need to explain what they want to convey to the readers. Language in the manuscript should be edited professionally. I recommend some simplification. Sentences are too long and lots of unnecessary information there. The paper mostly presents the analysis results but does not talk about the interpretation of them. The literature spectrum is nice. The conclusion should be enhanced by considering the results. There should be something beyond the analyses for the readers to take out. That should be emphasized in the paper well. The results can be given in a meaningful manner for readers to understand.
Author Response
Please review the including files.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has nothing new to present. This idea has been much investigated before. The author should focused on the compressive strength and the tensile strength of the mortar.
Author Response
Please review the including files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The Manuscript entitled " Numerical Simulation of Gears for Fault Detection using AI Model" is very interesting scientific work.
It has strong points as: The structure of the Manuscript is sufficient for the study. The conducted Methodology is reasonable for this study. Conclusion section is well written and in a good shape.
However the Manuscript from some revision:
- The introduction is missing from some qualitative and quantitative comparison with other works.
- The presentation of the results in some figures is not clear and obvious for the reader, e.g. fig 3 it is hard to see what is what. Some deeper description on the figure is needed; Figure 4 why there are different colours in this function?
- More deeper explanation of the methodology is needed, even though it is sufficient the deeper explanation for others is needed,
- the analyses of the results is not sufficient and should be rewritten.
-reference section missing some publications in this field, therefore it might be beneficial to compare the results obtained in the study with other in the field.
Overall merit is very positive and work is interesting however it benefits from revision.
Author Response
Please review the including files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Ms. Ref. No.: Manuscript ID: materials-1829854 – peer-review
Promising Mortar Produced with Seawater and Sea Sand
Reviewer comments:
SUMMARY
The manuscript deals with an investigation on Mortar Produced with Seawater and Sea Sand. This is a topic that has not been widely covered in the literature, therefore, this a subject of great interest, but it is somehow limited in the analysis and application of these results.
MAIN IMPRESSIONS
This paper has an undeniable practical usefulness. However, from a scientific point of view, the following issues must be addressed: i) Research results should be discussed in deep, ii) the novelty of the paper should be underlined; ii) Some new references related to the sulphate attack and Friedel’s salt generation should be discussed. Therefore, it is necessary to support your findings with the previous literature.
Finally, if such a submission were to be made, it is suggested that the authors have the manuscript reviewed by a native English speaker before submission. Although comprehensible, the paper could be made more accessible if it were somewhat shorter and the language was rather clearer.
MORE DETAILED COMMENTS
Line 1: “Type of the Paper (Article) ” must be “Article”.
Line 15: “What do you mean saying ”...create the environment-friendship mortar at various ages including 10-day, 33-day, and 91-day.”?
Line 17: EDS, XRD, and SEM analysis: Since this is the first time that they are mentioned, include the full name, i.e., ”X-ray diffraction (XRD)”.
Line 17: age accumulation?
Line 19: ”he results” must be ”The results”. Please, check the English throughout the text.
Line 52: Could you please introduce the seawater attack? Mortar exposed to seawater can suffer deterioration by sulphate attack, particularly by the action of magnesium sulphate, and also by crystallisation of salts in the mortar pores. Salts may crystallise in the mortar above the high-water mark when evaporation occurs. The resultant expansion may cause disruption of the mortar. The reactions that occur when mortar is exposed to sulphate ions or magnesium sulphate solutions are thought to be the same as in seawater. Calcium sulphate and calcium sulphoaluminate, however, have increased solubility in chloride solutions and tend to be leached out of mortar in seawater. Calcium hydroxide may also be leached out of seawater exposed mortar. In addition, seawater also contains dissolved carbon dioxide which may lead to carbonation. Furthermore, an extreme case of seawater attack of mortar because of a inadequate cement type (i.e. >10% C3A content). Resistance to seawater attack can be provided by low penetrability, low water/cement ratio, high cement content, mortar. Some new references related to the sulphate attack should be discussed. Therefore, it is necessary to support your findings with the previous literature.
Line 145: The quality of ”Figure 5. XRD patterns of sea sand” must be improved. It must indicate the main compunds.
Line 149: Could you please add the chemical composition of the composite Portland P.C 42.5 R?
Line 149: Could you please add the specification’s standard of the composite Portland P.C 42.5 R?
Line 149: Could you please add the composite Portland provider?
Line 149: ”FeO, 2”. What is “2”?
Line 151: Where are the EDS results?
Line 157: mortar preparation [15-20]: Could you please specify which standard has you used in each test, procedure nad so on?
Lines 212-237: The text must be justified.
Lines 182-330: Only one reference has been employed to discuss the results. It is suggested to improve the discussion.
Line 335: Conclusion 1. The physicochemical reactivity of the mortar showed the increasing behaviour in the marine environment due to …. Could you please complete the sentence?
Line 335: “Conclusion 1. The mortar produced in the study achieved the promising development of the components and the hydration products even under the natural condition.” As expected? This is not a conclusion. The novelty of the paper should be underlined.
Line 339: Conclusion 2: Friedel’s salt generation …”. Some new references related to the sulphate attack and Friedel’s salt generation should be discussed. Therefore, it is necessary to support your findings with the previous literature.
Line 361: Conclusion 7: How the reduction of the requirement for the river sand will help to control the global carbon emission? What about the drying process?
Lines 375-417: References must be listed individually at the end of the manuscript following the mpdi format and must include the digital object identifier (DOI) for all references where available:
1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
For instance, “…Cement. Concrete. Res. 1996, 26: 717-727” must be “… Cem. Concr. Res. 1996, 26, 717-727”.
RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, Major changes have been proposed.
Author Response
Please review the including files.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
authors carried major corrections done
Reviewer 4 Report
Please, accept this paper in the present form.
