Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique for sustainable structural concreting

Edwin Zumba; Nancy Velasco; Edison Marcelo Melendres Medina; Jorge Bunay; Nestor Augusto Estrada Brito; Kennedy C. Onyelowe; Nakkeeran Ganasen; Shadi Hanandeh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302202

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 26, 2023
19 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Ghulam Rasool, Editor PONE-D-23-43677Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology techniquePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Onyelowe, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2024 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ghulam Rasool 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “NO-The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” 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. 3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. Additional Editor Comments: Major revisions are required at this stage. Please incorporate all the comments of reviewers and avoid irrelevant citations (if any). [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: Yes ****** 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: Comments and Suggestions The research article titled " Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique” investigated the forecasting of the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) mixes by using the response surface methodology (RSM) technique, the influence of normal sizes of the coarse aggregate has been studied. The paper needs to be further improved, the novelty needs to be clearly emphasized, and the following comments are given below • The abstract is very poorly written. No clear explanation is given what is the novelty of this work. The author needs to rewrite the abstract again. Please provide a clear and concise explanation of the motivations and objectives of the study in the Abstract which is clearly missing. • When the coarse aggregates are used with the size greater than 20 mm, what will be the effect of it on the yield stress and viscosity? Please explain. • What can be the optimized mixture to maximize compressive and tensile strength?? • It is recommended that the Orimet flow model should be discussed further explaining why can be studied by applying novel numerical and analytical methods as a supplementary method to the V-funnel, L-box and slump cone techniques. • The numerical modeling techniques perform optimally in coupled mathematical computations for example the LBM–H–B and SPH model framework for the fresh concrete (SCC) rheology, why? • Please recheck all the equations, the format is not the same for the equations. • The authors should provide more discussions on the mechanisms for performance strategies, which would be beneficial for readers to understand their significance which is clearly missing in the submitted manuscript. It is better to do some more comparison of the work with other relevant work with proper references. • Several sentences are very long, please try to make them precise and to the point. Please have a look carefully. The Introduction is too long, please trim it. • Please organize your figures carefully. • The reference format is not correct. Please recheck and correct them. • The language expression in the text needs to be carefully checked and revised, especially in the Introduction. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Several sentences are just repeated in the whole manuscript. • The authors are also suggested to propose a more accurate manuscript title since several published papers have quite similar titles. Reviewer #2: Review Report Journal Name: Plos one Title: Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-43677 Decision: Major Revision At the outset, I appreciate the authors for their contribution towards Concrete Flow. Although the work is novel, some possible corrections make the article more informative and easily understandable to a researcher. a. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Therefore, request is to revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text before this work is considered for publication. b. Would you explicitly specify the novelty of your work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made? c. The literature review section should be improved. It should be dedicated to present critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. Also, critical comments should be made on the results of the cited works. d. Add some details about Concrete Flow in the novelty paragraph. e. Support each part of the manuscript with strong references, like the basic model, physical quantities, etc. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Wasim Jamshed ******** [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.0302202.r001
Revision 1
25 Mar 2024 Author Response PLOS ONE REPLY TO COMMENTS Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-43677 Title: Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique 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. 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: Comments and Suggestions The research article titled " Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique” investigated the forecasting of the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC) mixes by using the response surface methodology (RSM) technique, the influence of normal sizes of the coarse aggregate has been studied. The paper needs to be further improved, the novelty needs to be clearly emphasized, and the following comments are given below • The abstract is very poorly written. No clear explanation is given what is the novelty of this work. The author needs to rewrite the abstract again. Please provide a clear and concise explanation of the motivations and objectives of the study in the Abstract which is clearly missing. R: The abstract has been clearly revised as required. Thank you for this insightful comment that has added value to the abstract content. • When the coarse aggregates are used with the size greater than 20 mm, what will be the effect of it on the yield stress and viscosity? Please explain. R: Using coarse aggregates with sizes greater than 20 mm in self-compacting concrete (SCC) can have several effects on its rheological properties, including yield stress and plastic viscosity: Increase in Yield Stress: Coarse aggregates with sizes greater than 20 mm can increase the yield stress of SCC due to their larger particle size and higher resistance to flow. The presence of larger aggregates can create more resistance to the flow of the concrete matrix, requiring higher shear stress to initiate flow. Consequently, SCC mixes containing coarse aggregates larger than 20 mm may exhibit higher yield stresses compared to mixes with smaller aggregates. Increase in Plastic Viscosity: Plastic viscosity is a measure of the resistance of the SCC mix to flow under shear stress. Coarse aggregates larger than 20 mm can increase the plastic viscosity of SCC by increasing the internal friction within the concrete mix. Larger aggregates create more contact points and increase the frictional resistance between particles, hindering the flow of the mix. As a result, SCC mixes with coarse aggregates larger than 20 mm typically exhibit higher plastic viscosity values. Impact on Workability: The increase in yield stress and plastic viscosity due to the presence of coarse aggregates larger than 20 mm can affect the workability and flowability of SCC. Higher yield stress and plastic viscosity may require increased pumping pressures and may make the mix less fluid, potentially affecting its ability to flow easily through congested reinforcement or intricate formwork. Segregation Risk: The presence of large aggregates can also increase the risk of aggregate segregation in SCC mixes. Higher yield stress and plastic viscosity, combined with the gravitational settling tendency of larger aggregates, may lead to differential settling and segregation of coarse aggregates within the mix. Overall, while the use of coarse aggregates larger than 20 mm in SCC can provide benefits such as improved mechanical properties and reduced paste content, it is essential to carefully consider their effects on yield stress and plastic viscosity. Proper mix design, including the selection of suitable proportions and gradation of aggregates, is crucial to maintain the desired rheological properties and performance of SCC mixes. • What can be the optimized mixture to maximize compressive and tensile strength?? R: This study is focused on the rheology of the studied SCC and not on the hardened SCC with which the strength properties can be evaluated. The optimization proportion has been proposed for the rheological fresh state of the SCC. Figures 14 and 28 present the optimized YS and PV from various combinations of the studied parameters and from Equations 7 and 8, the optimal practical PV and YS can be established for various proportions of the concrete components to applied in the design and production of the rheologically optimized concrete. • It is recommended that the Orimet flow model should be discussed further explaining why can be studied by applying novel numerical and analytical methods as a supplementary method to the V-funnel, L-box and slump cone techniques. R: The Orimet flow model offers several benefits over traditional methods such as the V-funnel and L-box models for assessing the flow properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC). Here are some advantages of the Orimet flow model: Enhanced Accuracy: The Orimet flow model provides a more accurate representation of the flow behavior of SCC compared to the V-funnel and L-box models. It takes into account additional factors such as yield stress, plastic viscosity, and thixotropy, which are essential for accurately characterizing the flow properties of SCC. Comprehensive Analysis: Unlike the V-funnel and L-box models, which primarily focus on measuring flowability or passing ability, the Orimet flow model offers a more comprehensive analysis of various rheological properties of SCC. It provides insights into parameters such as yield stress and plastic viscosity, which are crucial for understanding the flow behavior and stability of SCC mixes. Thixotropic Behavior: The Orimet flow model accounts for thixotropic behavior, which is the property of SCC to become less viscous over time when subjected to shear stress. Thixotropy is a key aspect of SCC flow behavior and can significantly affect its performance during placement and consolidation. Suitability for Quality Control: The Orimet flow model can be particularly beneficial for quality control purposes in SCC production. By providing a more comprehensive characterization of SCC flow properties, it enables producers to monitor and adjust mix designs more effectively to ensure consistent and optimal performance. Research and Development: For research and development purposes, the Orimet flow model offers a valuable tool for studying the rheological properties of SCC in more detail. Researchers can use the model to investigate the effects of different materials, proportions, and mix designs on SCC flow behavior and develop improved concrete formulations. Applicability to Various Mix Designs: The Orimet flow model is adaptable to different types of SCC mixes, including those containing various types of aggregates, supplementary cementitious materials, and chemical admixtures. Its versatility makes it suitable for a wide range of applications and mix designs. Overall, the Orimet flow model provides a more advanced and comprehensive approach to evaluating the flow properties of SCC compared to traditional methods like the V-funnel and L-box models. Its ability to account for factors such as yield stress, plastic viscosity, and thixotropy makes it a valuable tool for both practical applications and research purposes in the field of self-compacting concrete. • The numerical modeling techniques perform optimally in coupled mathematical computations for example the LBM–H–B and SPH model framework for the fresh concrete (SCC) rheology, why? R: This is because the computational distortion encountered in analytical and / or mesh-based techniques are handled and overcome due to the application of a meshless mechanism and the ability to handle large deformations. • Please recheck all the equations, the format is not the same for the equations. R: The equations have been reformatted to maintain consistency. Thank you. • The authors should provide more discussions on the mechanisms for performance strategies, which would be beneficial for readers to understand their significance which is clearly missing in the submitted manuscript. It is better to do some more comparison of the work with other relevant work with proper references. R: This important concern has been revised in the results discussion sections appropriate to the two modeled parameters. • Several sentences are very long, please try to make them precise and to the point. Please have a look carefully. The Introduction is too long, please trim it. R: This concern has been studied and revised accordingly throughout the manuscript texts. Thank you. • Please organize your figures carefully. R: Yes, thank you professor for this. It has been revised as required. • The reference format is not correct. Please recheck and correct them. R: The format of the references list has been checked as required and revised accordingly. • The language expression in the text needs to be carefully checked and revised, especially in the Introduction. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Several sentences are just repeated in the whole manuscript. R: The language problems raised in this comment have been checked also and revised. Thank you. • The authors are also suggested to propose a more accurate manuscript title since several published papers have quite similar titles. R: The title has been adjusted as needed. Thank you. Reviewer #2: Review Report Journal Name: Plos one Title: Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-43677 Decision: Major Revision At the outset, I appreciate the authors for their contribution towards Concrete Flow. Although the work is novel, some possible corrections make the article more informative and easily understandable to a researcher. a. There are significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. Therefore, request is to revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text before this work is considered for publication. R: The mentioned English language issues have been checked and revised accordingly. b. Would you explicitly specify the novelty of your work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made? R: This as mentioned by the first reviewer has been checked and revised in the background section as required c. The literature review section should be improved. It should be dedicated to present critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. Also, critical comments should be made on the results of the cited works. R: This concern has been made to be in place and it critically studied and analysed other previous works relevant to this project. d. Add some details about Concrete Flow in the novelty paragraph. R: This has been mentioned in the background section as needed. Thank you very much. e. Support each part of the manuscript with strong references, like the basic model, physical quantities, etc. R: This has been put in place as required. Thank you for the insightful comment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 7. Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302202.r002
1 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Ghulam Rasool, Editor Forecasting the rheological state properties of self-compacting concrete mixes using the response surface methodology technique for sustainable structural concreting PONE-D-23-43677R1 Dear Dr. Onyelowe, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Ghulam Rasool Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): accept Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. 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: The reviewer is still not satisfied with the organization of the of the figures. There are figures which can be merged together according to the reviewer. Reviewer #2: Based on the content of the latest revised manuscript, it is worth remarking that a) the manuscript contains an interesting and novel aim, b) the title is informative and relevant, c) the introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion of results, conclusion and references are of high standard, d) Author(s) have rigorously revised the manuscript. The present form of the whole report is also of high standard, and e) the contribution of the report to the body of knowledge is significant. Based on these aforementioned facts, it is worth concluding that the article is error free and suitable for publication. I hereby recommend "Acceptance". Congratulations to the authors for updating the body of knowledge with new scientific facts. ****** 7. 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: Yes: Dr. Wasim Jamshed ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302202.r003
Formally Accepted
29 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ghulam Rasool, Editor PONE-D-23-43677R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Onyelowe, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Ghulam Rasool Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302202.r004

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 .