Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material

Cheng Wang; Chun Wang; Zuqiang Xiong; Yuli Wang; Yafeng Han

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236718

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 12, 2020
14 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Kedsarin Pimraksa, Editor PONE-D-20-00990 Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material PLOS ONE Dear Mr. WANG, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ACADEMIC EDITOR: In my point of view, this manuscript is required additionally an explanation on the experimental design in the experimental part. Please explain the role of each material used clearly and explain the amount basis of each material used in the experiments to strengthen scientific method. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kedsarin Pimraksa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "no" At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Table 1: Change loss by loss in ignition Line 65: degree? ºC? Line 158: changed Yuan by dollar? Line 186: add gel at CSH (II) The references are very local, they should be more international. English must be revised Reviewer #2: The author conducted an experimental study on high-flow and low-expansion backfill material, and the backfill material had extensive sources of raw materials, low cost, and a simple filling process and good filling effect. This is of great significance to the comprehensive utilization of mine solid waste and environmental protection. Nevertheless, I still make a few suggestions for this article. 1. The format of lines 49 and 50 in the material section is incorrect 2. Only the fly ash in Table 1 is mentioned in the article and no mineral powder is mentioned 3. National standards should be quoted, not stated in the article as currently 4. The temperature in line 65 has no units, and should the strength be consistent with the uniaxial compressive strength below? 5. Is the expansion rate of line 66 defined by the author himself? If not, please quote 6. The abbreviation in line 147 should be consistent in the full text table, and the format of this part needs to be adjusted 7. The author only conducted the sem test as a micro-analysis. In my opinion, the author should add some micro-tests (such as spectrum or thermogravimetry) to prove the experimental results and discussion mentioned above ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r001
Revision 1
31 May 2020 Author Response Dear Prof./Dr. Kedsarin Pimraksa: Thank you very much for considering our manuscript. All authors would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to you and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable suggestions on our paper (Paper no: PONE-D-20-00990, Paper title: Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material). According to the comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript and made it easy to be understood. The revised manuscript is attached to this email, and questions are all answered one by one in the enclosed files. We hope the revised manuscript can meet these requests and to be accepted. I look forward to hearing from your decision as soon as possible. Best regards. Cheng Wang, Chun Wang, Zuqiang Xiong, Yuli Wang, Yafeng Han To ACADEMIC EDITOR’s Evaluations: Comment 1: In my point of view, this manuscript is required additionally an explanation on the experimental design in the experimental part. Please explain the role of each material used clearly and explain the amount basis of each material used in the experiments to strengthen scientific method. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. The investigated backfill material in this study is intended to be used in Gushuyuan coal mine located in Jincheng City, China. In the initial investigation phase, a numerical modelling was conducted to determine the reasonable backfill material strength. The numerical model is shown in Fig. 1. Variation curve of the roof subsidence under different backfill material strength is shown in Fig. 2. In Fig.2, the abscissa is the strength ratio between the backfill material and coal, and the ordinate is the roof subsidence. It is observed that the roof subsidence gradually stabilizes after increasing the strength ratio to 0.6-0.8. Thus, the reasonable strength ratio of backfill material used in Gushuyuan coal mine was determined as 0.6-0.8. Fig. 1 Numerical model Fig. 2 Variation curve of the roof subsidence under different backfill material strength The fly ash has the potential pozzolanic activity. Some of the gels (e.g., C-S-H and C-A-H) can be generated after mixing fly ash with lime and water. Additionally, the wide source and low price of the fly ash are also its advantage. Thus, the fly ash was selected as the main component of the backfill materials. The performance of the backfill material (e.g. the strength and bleeding) may be improved by reducing the amount of the fly ash and simultaneously increasing other highly actives. Nevertheless, the cost of the backfill material at this moment will be a headache. On the other hand, the backfill material properties are poor when the amount of the fly ash is high and the amount of other highly actives is low. The performance of the backfill materials is balanced when the mass ratio of the fly ash is 80% based on the initial investigation. The strength of the backfill material is sufficient at this ratio. Additionally, the cost of the backfill material is also cheap. Thus, the mass ratio of the fly ash was fixed at 80% in this study. The mine powder, lime, and desulfurized gypsum were selected as the cementitious material. The sodium carbonate was used as the alkali-activator to improve the hydration activity of the fly ash. The aluminum powder is used as air-entraining agent. A series of experiments were designed to determine the amount of the cementitious material, the alkali-activator, and the air-entraining agent. We have added a short description to explain the role of each material. The amount basis of each material used in the experiments were also explained. Please see lines 46-47, 50-51,55-56，page 3; lines 57, page 4; 73-77, page 4. To Review #1’s Evaluations: Comment 1: Table 1: Change loss by loss in ignition Response: Thank you very much, we have changed loss by loss in ignition. Comment 2: Line 65: degree? ºC? Response: Thank you very much, Line 65: the temperature was 20±1 ºC. Comment 3: Line 158: changed Yuan by dollar? Response: Thank you very much. As you suggested that we have changed Yuan by dollar, the backfill cost was 11.2 dollar /m3. Comment 4: Line 186: add gel at CSH (II) Response: Thank you very much. According to your suggested that we have added gel at CSH (II). Comment 5: The references are very local, they should be more international. Response: Thank you very much. As you suggested that we have added more international references. And the revised portions are marked in this manuscript. [2] Pokharel, M., Fall, M., 2011. Coupled thermochemical effects on the strength development of slag-paste backfill materials. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (5):511-525. [3] Ayub, T., Shafiq, N., Khan, S.U., Nuruddin, M., 2013. Durability of concrete with different mineral admixtures: a review. Int. J. Civ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 7 (8), 265-276. [7] Koohestani, B., Belem, T., Koubaa, A., Bussière, B., 2016. Experimental investigation into the compressive strength development of cemented paste backfill containing nanosilica. Cem. Concr. Compos. 72:180-189. [11] Fall, M., Benzaazoua, M., 2005. Modeling the effect of sulphate on strength development of paste backfill and binder mixture optimization. Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2):301-314. [16] Sahmaran, M., Yaman, I.O., Tokyay, M., 2009. Transport and mechanical properties of selfconsolidating concrete with high volume fly ash. Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (2):99-106. Comment 6: English must be revised. Response: Thank you very much to point out this critical problem. As you suggested, we have asked a high quality professional English editorial service to edit this paper, and the certificate is along with this revision. To Review #2’s Evaluations: Comment 1: The format of lines 49 and 50 in the material section is incorrect. Response: Thank you very much. According to your suggested that we have revised the format of lines 49 and 50 in the material section. Comment 2: Only the fly ash in Table 1 is mentioned in the article and no mineral powder is mentioned. Response: Thank you very much. Mineral powder as an additive, we really do not describe it in detail. However, the mineral powder is mentioned in line 74 and Table 2. Comment 3: National standards should be quoted, not stated in the article as currently Response: Thank you very much to point out the problem. The slump flow of the slurry, compressive strength of the consolidated slurry, and expansion rate were determined in this manuscript, respectively. The slump flow test of the slurry was performed based on Appendix A in GB 50119-2003. The preparation, maintenance and determination of compressive strength of the specimen were performed based on the GB/T 50080-2016. The expansion rate of the consolidated slurry was defined as the ratio of the interface height differences before and after slurry hardening to the interface height value of the initial slurry. The determination thought of the expansion rate is consistent with the expansive ratio determination of expansive cement (JC/T 313-2009). According to your suggested that the national standards have been quoted, and the quoted part have been marked in the paper. Please see lines 71-73, page 4. Once again, thank you for your valuable reminder. Comment 4: The temperature in line 65 has no units, and should the strength be consistent with the uniaxial compressive strength below? Response: Thank you very much to point out the problem. We have added the units, the temperature was 20±1 ºC. And the strength is consistent with the uniaxial compressive strength below. Comment 5: Is the expansion rate of line 66 defined by the author himself? If not, please quote Response: Thank you very much. The expansion rate of line 66 defined is quoted by other author, the reference is listed as follows: D.J. De Souza, L.F.M. Sanchez, M.T. De Grazia. Evaluation of a direct shear test setup to quantify AAR-induced expansion and damage in concrete. Construction and Building Materials 2019, 9(6):1-10. Comment 6: The abbreviation in line 147 should be consistent in the full text table, and the format of this part needs to be adjusted. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The abbreviation have been consistent in the full text table, and the format of this part have been also adjusted. And the revised parts have been marked in the paper. Comment 7: The author only conducted the sem test as a micro-analysis. In my opinion, the author should add some micro-tests (such as spectrum or thermogravimetry) to prove the experimental results and discussion mentioned above. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggest, if the paper add some micro-tests (such as spectrum or thermogravimetry), it can prove the experimental results and the discussion part. Before we submitted the paper, we intended to do this experiment, but due to the laboratory problems and our uncertainty about the micro experiment, we did not do it. We are very grateful for your valuable advice, which verified our idea, because of the 2019-nCoV, we are unable to complete the experiment. We are very grateful for your comments, which provided the basis for our later research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r002
30 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Kedsarin Pimraksa, Editor PONE-D-20-00990R1 Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material PLOS ONE Dear Dr. WANG, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== 1. Inconsistent word: Authors used mineral powder and mine powder in many places. 2. Missing of characterization explanation: Sample preparation for SEM analysis should be explained in the part of experiment and methods. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kedsarin Pimraksa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): 1. Inconsistent word: Author used both mineral powder and mine powder in many places. 2. Missing of characterization explanation: Sample preparation for SEM analysis should be explained in experimental and methods. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r003
Revision 2
9 Jul 2020 Author Response Dear Prof./Dr. Kedsarin Pimraksa: Thank you very much for considering our manuscript. All authors would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to you and the anonymous reviewers for the valuable suggestions on our paper (Paper no: PONE-D-20-00990R1, Paper title: Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material). According to the comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript and made it easy to be understood. The revised manuscript is attached to this email, and questions are all answered one by one in the enclosed files. We hope the revised manuscript can meet these requests and to be accepted. I look forward to hearing from your decision as soon as possible. Best regards. Cheng Wang, Chun Wang, Zuqiang Xiong, Yuli Wang, Yafeng Han To Academic Editor’s Evaluations: Comment 1: Inconsistent word: Author used both mineral powder and mine powder in many places. Response: Thank you very much. As you suggested that we have changed the inconsistent word. And the revised portions are marked in this manuscript. Comment 2: Missing of characterization explanation: Sample preparation for SEM analysis should be explained in experimental and methods. Response: Thank you very much. According to your suggested that we have added the characterization explanation, and the revised portions are marked in this manuscript. The SEM sample was taken from the specimens in uniaxial compression test, the sample was made by 1cm1cm. Then it was fixed on the metal plate with double-sided conductive adhesive, the metal plate was placed in a gold-spraying apparatus for gold spraying, drying and vacuuming, and finally placed in a SEM instrument for the experiment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r004
14 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Kedsarin Pimraksa, Editor Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material PONE-D-20-00990R2 Dear Dr. WANG, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Kedsarin Pimraksa, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r005
Formally Accepted
30 Jul 2020 Acceptance Letter - Kedsarin Pimraksa, Editor PONE-D-20-00990R2 Experimental study of high-flow and low-expansion backfill material Dear Dr. WANG: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Kedsarin Pimraksa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236718.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .