Experimental Study on the Workability and Stability of Steel Slag Self-Compacting Concrete

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The incorporation of different content of fine slag as a replacement of sand is not anything original.  I did not find any originality in this research. What is the main contribution of this work?

The introduction is full of non-related explanations, talked about non-related stuff in SCC technology. There is no scientific discussions supporting the expected experimental results, instead, the manuscript is full of non-useful description of the well-know workability tests...

The manuscript is full of repetition of words, grammar, and typo errors. The english of the manuscript needs to be extensively revised.

 

Author Response

We thank you for your careful read and thoughtful comments on previous manuscript.

I’m very sorry we fail to express clearly and shortcomings of the manuscript.

We have carefully rewritten the manuscript and added a lot of content in the manuscript according to the comments. 

Please see details in the revised manuscript (“applscci-692856(R1)20200208.docx” and “applsci-692856(R1).pdf”) attached. Thank you!

(Note: We are very sorry for that the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate we can provide is not in Word form but in PDF form. Because the revised manuscript after thoroughly modified, maybe because too many changes, cannot be saved again. So I have to print PDF with virtual printer, and the content after modified was also be copied in other word file using the “applsci-template.dot”. So please review both the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate in PDF and WORD file with change mark in red. )

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is quite interesting and the analysed problem of steel slag waste is actual. In the work is analysing, how the waste quantity of steel slag influences workability of self compacting concrete (SCC). The work is very important, because only “China's crude steel output in 2018 is 928 million tons, while the steel slag output is about 150 million tons”. This area of manufacture increases and increases amount of waste. The idea to use this waste for concrete changing content of natural aggregate by steel slag is grateful. In the article also is analysing the properties of used steel slag. The strengths of manuscript is idea and reasonably written Introduction. In the introduction are cited 24 references and the problem described very clear. Also, the Methodological part is written very good, some properties of raw materials are presented, but it should be added properties of natural sand. The weakness are presentation and analysing of results. Many Figures are not useful. The quality of description and Figures should be improved. Compressive strength is presented only for one batch, it must be presented for all batches.

Remarks:

Many writing mistakes (Graval, stabilityof, of of SSCC, etc.).
In Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 must be added dimensions (rulers).
In Fig. 2 b must be visible ∆h and PA.
In the Table 10 and Fig. 4 the information is the same, also one of them must be deleted.
Fig. 3 should be deleted, because of useless information.
The last Fig. (it is second Fig. 5.) must be deleted.
The conclusions should be corrected. They should be more accurate (with numbers). What does mean “good” or “worse and worse”.
The interpretation of results could be more scientific.

Author Response

We thank you for your careful read and thoughtful comments on previous manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments. 

Please see details in the revised manuscript (“applscci-692856(R1)20200208.docx” and “applsci-692856(R1).pdf”) attached.

(Note: We are very sorry for that the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate we can provide is not in Word form but in PDF form. Because the revised manuscript after thoroughly modified, maybe because too many changes, cannot be saved again. So I have to print PDF with virtual printer, and the content after modified was also be copied in other word file using the “applsci-template.dot”. So please review both the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate in PDF and WORD file with change mark in red. )

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is interesting, the authors have studied the possibilities of adding steel slags in the manufacture of self-compacting concrete, mainly the Workability property.
First of all, it is necessary to include the particle size distribution in the characterization of steel slags. The X-ray diffraction should also be discussed with the results obtained.
In my opinion it is not necessary to include figure 3, the information included in figure 2 is enough, and with the results included in table 10.
It is necessary to include the properties ant the name of the superplasticizer used in this work.
Although this paper is focused on the study of the consistency and workability properties of self-compacting concrete, in my opinion, compressive strength results should be included at least at he age of 28 days.
A general conclusion should be included after the presentation of the specific conclusions.

Author Response

We thank you for your careful read and thoughtful comments on previous manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments. 

We have added content related to the advance of knowledge that this work entailed. Please see details in the revised manuscript (“applscci-692856(R1)20200208.docx” and “applsci-692856(R1).pdf”) attached.

(Note: We are very sorry for that the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate we can provide is not in Word form but in PDF form. Because the revised manuscript after thoroughly modified, maybe because too many changes, cannot be saved again. So I have to print PDF with virtual printer, and the content after modified was also be copied in other word file using the “applsci-template.dot”. So please review both the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate in PDF and WORD file with change mark in red. )

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please indicate for what period (7 or 28 days) the results of the test were presented. What concrete compressive strength was given? For a single sample or is the average of 3 measurements? If a series of concrete has been evaluated on the basis of three samples, it is necessary to determine whether the results obtained are statistically significant.
The text does not describe an assessment of the significance of the obtained results.

Author Response

We thank you for your careful read and thoughtful comments on previous manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments. 

We have added content related to the advance of knowledge that this work entailed. Please see details in the revised manuscript (“applscci-692856(R1)20200208.docx” and “applsci-692856(R1).pdf”) attached. Thanks.

(Note: We are very sorry for that the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate we can provide is not in Word form but in PDF form. Because the revised manuscript after thoroughly modified, maybe because too many changes, cannot be saved again. So I have to print PDF with virtual printer, and the content after modified was also be copied in other word file using the “applsci-template.dot”. So please review both the revised manuscript with "Track Changes" sate in PDF and WORD file with change mark in red. )

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been modified in a positive way but still the novelty of the research is missed.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion the authors have improved the document and it can be accepted