Authors Responses to Review Comments

Suitability of Recycled Aggregates for Application in Structural

Concrete: Experimental Study
Editor’s comments:
We have reached a decision regarding your submission to Journal of Graphic Era University,
"Suitability of Recycled Aggregates for Application in Structural Concrete: Experimental Study:
Recycled Aggregates for Application in Structural Concrete.”
Our decision is: Revisions Required

Response: Thank you for the opportunity to improve our manuscript titled "Suitability of
Recycled Aggregates for Application in Structural Concrete: Experimental Study." We appreciate
the constructive comments provided by the reviewers and have thoroughly revised the manuscript
accordingly. Below, we detail our responses to each comment and outline the specific changes
made.

Reviewer B: Thank you for your recommendation to accept our submission. We appreciate your
positive assessment of the manuscript and have made further improvements based on the feedback
from other reviewers to enhance clarity and rigor.

Reviewer C:
1. The manuscript provides valuable insights but would benefit from clarifying the research gap
in the introduction.
2. Some data points in Figure 4 lack explanation, especially for the machine-crushed aggregate
results.
3. The methodology section could be improved by specifying the number of samples tested for each
concrete mix.
4. Cost efficiency analysis (Section 5) would be more compelling with a detailed breakdown of
material costs.
5. The discussion on flexural strength (Figure 6) lacks sufficient comparison with existing
literature.
6. The conclusion section should summarize more concrete applications of the findings.
7. There is a need to clarify the limitations of the experiment, especially related to the variability
of recycled aggregates.
8. Table 2 could be better formatted by aligning the mix proportions clearly for easier comparison.
Recommendation: Revisions Required.

Response: The authors appreciate the reviewer for conducting an in-depth review of our
manuscript and providing useful comments. Each of these comments are addressed and
accordingly, the manuscript is revised for better clarity and conciseness. Our specific responses
are sequentially given below.

Comment C-1: Clarifying the Research Gap in the Introduction.

1
Response: We have revised the Introduction section to more explicitly highlight the specific
research gap our study addresses (Line 55-60, pg 2).

Comment C-2: Explanation of Data Points in Figure 4 (Machine-Crushed Aggregate Results).

Response: Additional explanations have been added in the Results and Discussion section to
clarify the observed performance of machine-crushed recycled aggregates. We have elaborated on
factors such as aggregate degradation and the resulting impact on compressive strength, providing
a clearer interpretation of the machine-crushed aggregate data (Line 144-148, pg 6).

Comment C-3: Number of Samples in Methodology.

Response: In the Methodology section, we have now included the specific number of samples
tested for each concrete mix, providing more detail on the sample sizes to enhance reproducibility
and allow for a more comprehensive understanding of our testing protocol (Line 67, pg. 2 to Line
74, pg. 3)

Comment C-4: Cost efficiency analysis (Section 5) would be more compelling with a detailed
breakdown of material costs.

Response: The cost-efficiency analysis has been expanded to include a detailed breakdown of
material costs, including the cost of recycled versus natural aggregates, processing costs, and
potential savings. This addition enhances the transparency and relevance of the cost analysis (Line
223-236, pg 10).

Comment C-5: Comparative Analysis on Flexural Strength with Existing Literature

Response: We have strengthened the Discussion section on flexural strength by incorporating a
comparative analysis with results from similar studies in the existing literature. This comparison
underscores the distinct behavior of RAC in flexural applications relative to NAC, lending context
to our findings (Lines 172-187, pg. 8):

Comment C-6: Summarizing Concrete Applications in the Conclusion

Response: We revised the Conclusion section to explicitly summarize the practical applications
of RAC in structural concrete, particularly for non-load-bearing structures, pavements, and cost-
sensitive construction projects. This summary aligns with the practical implications of our findings
(Line 238, pg. 10 to Line 262, pg. 11).

Comment C-7: Clarifying Experiment Limitations Regarding Variability of Recycled Aggregates

Response: A Limitations and Future Directives subsection has been added to the manuscript,
discussing the inherent variability of recycled aggregates due to their diverse sources and
processing methods. We address the potential impact on material properties and emphasize the
need for further studies to refine quality control for RAC (Lines 264-287, pg. 11):

Comment C-8: Formatting of Table 2 for Clear Comparison

2
Response: Table 2 has been reformatted with aligned columns to enhance readability and allow
for a clearer comparison of mix proportions. This change improves the clarity of the presented data
(Lines 110, pg. 4)

Reviewer D:
1. Some grammatical error should be removed in revise paper.
2. Add application of the proposed technique.
3. It is looking for good if, author compare their results to others work.
4. The limitations of the proposed model should be added conclusion section.
5. Though a good paper but lacks in formatting. Paper should be read thoroughly and should
be corrected all grammatical and punctuation errors. Content and research contribution
wise paper is good and should be accepted.
6. Check, all table and figure should be cited in text.
Recommendation: Accept Submission

Response:The authors have addressed all the points raised by the esteemed reviewers and revised
the manuscript accordingly. The specific responses to the review comments are described herein.

Comment D 1: Addressing Grammatical Errors

Response: The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread and edited to eliminate grammatical
and punctuation errors.

Comment D 2: Adding Applications of the Proposed Technique

Response: We have revised both the Conclusion and Discussion sections to expand on practical
applications of RAC in the construction industry, highlighting its use in structural and non-
structural applications, particularly where sustainability and cost are primary considerations. (Line
238, pg. 10 to Line 262, pg. 11).

Comment D 3: Comparative Analysis with Other Works

Response: Comparative results from existing literature are now included in the Discussion section,
particularly for compressive and flexural strength outcomes. This addition contextualizes our
findings and aligns our work with the broader body of research on recycled concrete applications
(Line 144-148, pg 6; Lines 172-187, pg. 8).

Comment D 4: Inclusion of Limitations in the Conclusion

Response: A Limitations section has been included, as recommended (Lines 263-24, pg. 13).

Comment D 5: Formatting and Citing Tables/Figures

Response: All tables and figures are now consistently cited within the text to ensure easy reference
for readers. We have also addressed any formatting inconsistencies throughout the document for
a professional presentation.