Influence of Polyformaldehyde Monofilament Fiber on the Engineering Properties of Foamed Concrete
, Mohd Mustafa Al Bakri Abdullah 2,3, Mohd Nasrun Mohd Nawi 4, Zarina Yahya 2, Liyana Ahmad Sofri 2, Madalina Simona Baltatu 5,*, Andrei Victor Sandu 5,6,7 and Petrica Vizureanu 5,8
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Manuscript entitled: Influence of polyformaldehyde monofilament fiber on the engineering properties of foamed concrete is very interesting scientific work.
Analysing this Manuscript the Reviewer has a few recommendations to improve the Manuscript before publishing:
- Abstract is to much in detail. Please clarify it and shorten
- Introduction is well written and contain the most relevant literature references
- section 2: Could You present the sieve distribution curve?
- Scale is missing in figure 1
- Please discribe these figures. What is presented in Figure 2 - 6 or present the scheme of testing stand.
- Could You present the curve equation and R^2 of its fitting in fig 8
- Are these densities different? Because it is not visible in fig 9
- Please verify the compressive strength scale in figure 25.
- Do you have proof of it? Maybe a photo from the tests. Conclusion statement 5.
After the revision the Manuscript is suitable for being published
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We are thankful for your comments. They helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Responses to specific issues are given below. We hope the paper has been improved and is now acceptable for publication in Materials.
Kind regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
· The introduction is weak, and the authors should use more than literature papers for their research. Also, they should present positive and negative points in each paper and at the end, they should explain their targets about improve research.
· The authors should present the advantages of FPF in industrial construction special economics. It is essential for the research.
· In figure 6, the length of the Flexural test is too short and the authors cannot get good results with this test. Please verify and justified the dimensions on your papers.
· All graphs have not good quality, the authors should present beautiful graphs.
· Authors should use the label numbers in bar columns.
I suggest the authors present linear regression models or nonlinear regression models for Flexural strengths and compressive. They can use dimensions, physical, and mechanical properties as input parameters.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We are thankful for your comments. They helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Responses to specific issues are given below. We hope the paper has been improved and is now acceptable for publication in Materials.
Kind regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Influence of polyformaldehyde monofilament fiber on the engineering properties of foamed concrete
Manuscript Number:
In the present paper authors assessed the potential utilization of polypropylene fibrillated fiber (PFF) in foamed concrete to enhance its engineering properties. However, the paper requires some improvement before it can be recommended for publication, it is proposed to re-submit a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, considering the following comments.
1. Overall recommendation should be reported in one sentence at the end of the abstract 2. The authors should overview the recent progress made in the relevant area in the past two years or so. Such as: 3. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.matlet.2022.132325 ; 4. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1063/5.0096707 5. etc. 6. Line 101-103 . “When compared to thick fibers, a thin membrane made of propylene fiber ….please add some relevant references; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1680/jmacr.15.00276..etc 7. Emphasizing the importance of research in introduction 8. The paper is well written and it is easy to follow, only the authors needs to go thoroughly revised version to correct the typo-mistake. 9. Author should highlight the assumptions and limitations and future research direction of the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We are thankful for your comments. They helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Responses to specific issues are given below. We hope the paper has been improved and is now acceptable for publication in Materials.
Kind regards,
Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Manuscript benefits from the revision. The two issues could be revised still:
- table 1 number of lines are inside the table.
- the reviewer would like to clarify the issue with figure 9, or the question. Have authors weighted the samples after preparation and adding PFF and they were exactly 600 kg/m3 and 1200kg/m3 or it was designed density.
After this revision Manuscript is ready to be published
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We are thankful for your comments. They helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Responses to specific issues are given below.
Kind regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest the authors add the table as a dataset about mixed design and splitting tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths, workability, porosity, water absorption, and density to the appendix.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We are thankful for your comments. They helped us to improve the quality of our paper. Responses to specific issues are given below.
Kind regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
