The authors thank the reviewer for the effort in reviewing and providing a useful feedback in order to

improve the quality of the manuscript further. The authors had made the best effort to address the
comments of the reviewers. The authors’ response to the comments of the reviewers are provided point
by point as follows. Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

The paper presents a research study on the mechanical strength and durability properties of ternary
blended cementitious composites containing granite quarry dust as natural sand replacement. The
paper has original content and worthy for publication in Construction and Building Materials. I can
recommend the paper for a possible publication. However, following comments must be considered
carefully before this recommendation.

- I recommend you providing a graphical abstract.

Authors’ response: Graphical abstract have been attached in the first page of the manuscript.

- Provide research highlights.

Authors’ response: Research highlights have been input in the second page of the manuscript from
line 4-14.

- Compare your methodology to the others and clearly supply info about its drawbacks.

Authors’ response: The methodology use in this manuscript are employed from the relevant
international standard. Additional employed international standards on the method to determine the
physical properties of the aggregates were clearly stated in line 261 to 263 and Table 1 in line 290 to
291. Such necessary improvement on the research gap have been made from line 122 to 131 and 150
to 210.

- Please make a more comprehensive review of the published literature. Mention about other studies
using granite wastes as a useful materials in various sector.

Authors’ response: A more comprehensive review of the published literature have been discussed in
the introduction from line 150 to 210. Meanwhile, incorporation of GQD in various sector have been
also reported in the study from line 132 to 159.

- Shorten the conclusions and give main results of your study.

Authors’ response: The conclusions have been condense and shorten as shown in line 945 to 969.

- I also recommend editing your paper according to the instructions for authors in the journal website.

Authors’ response: The revised manuscript have been edited according to the guidelines in the
instructions for authors.

Thank you for your good study.

Reviewer #2:

The topic is interesting and relevant.

The strength values are close to each other, in order to make any judgment, we need to know number
of samples and standard deviation. there seems to be prejudgment from authors that 60% must be
better according to literature. The QDS is coarser, for case of 100%, the w/b ratio is even lower, I don't
expect 60% replacement to be most optimized.

Authors’ response: Standard deviation has been stated clearly in each test results in the Figure and
Table in section 3 from line 488 to 489, 579 to 580, 582 to 583, 631 to 632, 666 to 667, 712 to 713, 754
to 755, 792 to 793 and 815 to 816. The numbers of test samples in this study has also clearly stated in
line 362, 374, 371 to 372, 377 to 379, 389 to 390, 396, 408, 420, 432 and 443. Such prejudgment has
been removed and replaced by a more relevant statement from line 46 to 49 and 945 to 969 to avoid
misunderstanding on this manuscript. Besides, for a thorough understanding, the properties of the
cementitious composites with various GQD content ranging from 0% up to 100% at stepped increment
of 20% by mass of aggregate was examined in the study.

Fixing admixture dosage and changing w/b ratio is rather odd. I expect same w/b and change of
admixture dosage to achieve the same performance. unlike w/b ratio, the admixture effect on
performance should not be significant.

Authors’ response: The change in w/b is a simulation of the production condition of a concrete
batching facility where the constituent materials content are fixed while the water content is slightly
varied to obtain a given level of workability. Besides, the 1 day mechanical and durability
performance of the cementitious composites have been also examined. Changing of chemical dosage
would possibly effect the results, with such consideration, the admixture dosage have been fixed in
this experimental program. Similar approach is also practiced by a number of research papers to
gauge the influence of certain additions/modifications on the water demand of the concrete mixture.

Atis, C. D. (2003) ‘Accelerated carbonation and testing of concrete made with fly ash’, Construction
and Building Materials, 17, pp. 147–152.
Benli, A., Karatas, M. and Gurses, E. (2017) ‘Effect of sea water and MgSO 4 solution on the
mechanical properties and durability of self-compacting mortars with fly ash / silica fume’, 146, pp.
464–474. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.108.
Brooks, J. J., Johari, M. A. M. and Mazloom, M. (2000) ‘Effect of admixtures on the setting times of
high-strength’, Cement and Concrete Composites, 22, pp. 293–301.
Cheng, S. et al. (2018) ‘Durability and microstructure of coral sand concrete incorporating
supplementary cementitious materials’, Construction and Building Materials. Elsevier Ltd, 171, pp. 44–
53. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.082.
Evangelista, L. and Brito, J. De (2007) ‘Mechanical behaviour of concrete made with fine recycled
concrete aggregates’, Cement and Concrete Composites, 29, pp. 397–401. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.12.004.
Kala, D. T. F. (2013) ‘Effect of Granite Powder on Strength Properties of Concrete’, International
Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(12), pp. 36–50.
Pedro, D., Brito, J. De and Evangelista, L. (2017a) ‘Evaluation of high-performance concrete with
recycled aggregates : Use of densified silica fume as cement replacement’, Construction and Building
Materials. Elsevier Ltd, 147, pp. 803–814. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.007.
Pedro, D., Brito, J. De and Evangelista, L. (2017b) ‘Structural concrete with simultaneous incorporation
of fine and coarse recycled concrete aggregates : Mechanical , durability and long-term properties’,
Construction and Building Materials. Elsevier Ltd, 154, pp. 294–309. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.215.
Rai, B., Kumar, S. and Satish, K. (2016) ‘Effect of Quarry Waste on Self-Compacting Concrete
Containing Binary Cementitious Blends of Fly Ash and Cement’, Advances in Materials Science and
Engineering, 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/1326960.
Raudonis, V. (2016) ‘Advanced mechanical properties and frost damage resistance of ultra-high
performance fibre reinforced concrete’, 126, pp. 26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.012.
Santamaría, A. et al. (2018) ‘A study on the durability of structural concrete incorporating electric
steelmaking slags’, Construction and Building Materials, 161, pp. 94–111. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.121.
Singh, S. et al. (2015) ‘Performance of sustainable concrete containing granite cutting waste’, Journal
of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 119, pp. 86–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.008.
Smarzewski, P. and Barnat-hunek, D. (2016) ‘Mechanical and durability related properties of high
performance concrete made with coal cinder and waste foundry sand’, Construction and Building
Materials. Elsevier Ltd, 121, pp. 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.148.
There are many additional explanation which is not contributing to this paper. is very difficult to read
through the paper due to repetitive affirmative statements.

Authors’ response: Repetitive affirmative statements in Section 3 “Results and discussion” from line
487 to 791 have been removed and the discussion enhanced in order to improve the readability of the
article.

I recommend to re-write the paper with better presenting experimental work including number of
samples, standard deviations, error of measurements and less comparison and justification for every
statement.

Authors’ response: Standard deviation have been stated clearly in each test results in the Figure and
Table in section 3 specific from line 488 to 489, 579 to 580, 582 to 583, 631 to 632, 666 to 667, 712 to
713, 754 to 755, 792 to 793 and 815 to 816. The numbers of test samples in this study has also clearly
stated in line 362, 374, 371 to 372, 377 to 379, 389 to 390, 396, 408, 420, 432 and 443.
Reviewer #3:

This purpose of this paper is not clear. The stated purpose is to examine the effect of GQD on
mechanical and durability properties of blended concrete. But most of the effects are seen when the
GGBS and PFA partially replace the portland cement. The GQD effect seems fairly small and it is not
clear whether the variations that are observed are within the uncertainty in the measurements (an
uncertainty analysis is completely missing so it is difficult to assess the likelihood that the variations are
within the noise).

Authors’ response: The discussion in Section 3 have been improved. The discussion was amended to
focus on the impact of the usage of GQD as river sand replacement to the cementitious composites,
while, the repeatedly discussion on the C-S-H and C-A-S-H effect have been omitted to prevent
confusion on the aim of this manuscript. The amendment specific from line 639 to 647, 677 to 684,
723 to 725, 767 to 772 and 945 to 969.

The paper seems to be primarily trying to identify an optimum amount of replacement of GQD in
blended concrete, and finds that 60% replacement is optimal. However, it is quite unlikely that this
result is general, and it is quite likely that optimal replacement level for any other GQD source would
depend significantly on the density and particle size distribution of the material compared to the fine
aggregate it is replacing. In any event, most of the properties vary by extremely small amounts with the
amount of GQD replacement, giving variations of no more than 10% from the mean (i.e., compressive
strength, flexural strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity). Again, variations of no more than 10% are
probably about what one would expect from natural measurement variations.

Authors’ response: Amendment have been done accordingly specific in 46 to 49 and 945 to 969.
Besides, it should be re-iterated that the primary aim of the work is to establish the suitability of the
use of GQD as a partial or complete sand replacement material for making structural mortar. At the
end of the study, it has been established that the GQD can be used either as a partial or complete
replacement of natural river sand. This is because there were no significant variation in the
mechanical strength, durability properties and length change behavior of the mortar with the
inclusion of GQD as partial or complete replacement of natural river sand in the mortar mix
proportion. This is evident based on marginal variation in terms of the performance parameters even
with the inclusion of GQD as a complete replacement of natural sand. It is a major finding as this
signify the possibility for large volume recycling of GQD (industrial by-product) to replace river sand (a
finite natural resource) for the production of sustainable mortar materials and reduce reliance on the
natural river sand resources.

One technical issue is how the mixtures were proportioned. All proportions were done on a mass basis,
which is the usual method. However, when the materials all have different densities, proportions based
on mass result in different volume fractions of the materials (thereby affecting both the porosity volume
and the distance from any aggregate jamming fraction) that is likely to have a significant effect on
property variations. But this influence is not mentioned very much in the paper (only the bulk density
section of the paper addresses this). So it is quite difficult to tell from the data how much of the effects
are due to the asserted causes (fineness, surface area, etc.) or just different volume fraction proportions
which would have similar effects.
Authors’ response: The mix proportional has been updated according to absolute volumetric method
based on the final w/c ratio in Table 2 as in accordance to the advice of the reviewer. Based on table
2, there was a marginal variation (within 5%) in the fine aggregate content (by mass) with the varying
replacement level of natural river sand with granite quarry dust due to the difference in the specific
gravity value and w/b ratio between the mixes.

The compressive strength section and flexural strength section are quite similar to each other, which is
not surprising since the proposed causes of the observed effects are exactly the same in each case. If
the paper is eventually accepted, these two sections should be combined into a much shorter section
that addresses both at the same time.

Authors’ response: The compressive strength section and flexural strength section have been
amended according to the suggestion by the reviewer. Such amendment can be found from line 516
to 578.

The value of the fracture surface examination by SEM in Section 3.11 is unclear since there is no way to
provide quantitative data from such sections and any interpretations are merely speculative because
one cannot be certain whether the observed surfaces are typical or atypical. In fact, the surfaces are
likely to differ considerably from the bulk by the nature of the fact that this is where the fracture
occurred. If the paper is eventually accepted, this whole section could probably be omitted.

Authors’ response: The works in Section 3.10(previously 3.11) has been improved for better
illustration. A more details indication have been input in the captured image to enhance the
understanding towards the microstructure of the cementitious composites. The changes made specific
from line 839 to 840, 843 to 844, 847 to 848, 878 to 879, 882 to 883, 886 to 887, 899 to 900, 904 to
905, 908 to 909, 931 to 932, 935 to 936 and 939 to 940. Labelling were input in each of the SEM image
as specific in the line aforementioned to improve the visual classification. .

The paper also suffers from a lot of English language problems. Most of the sentences are either
awkwardly worded or contain significant grammar errors. There are too many occurrences to list in this
review.

Authors’ response: The manuscript has been proof read to eliminate the English language issues and
grammatical errors encountered.

Figure 12 appears twice in the manuscript, and at least one figure reference in the text is misnumbered
(should be Figure 8 instead of Figure 5 in the first sentence of Section 3.6)

Authors’ response: The figure and table references had been checked and revised to rectify the errors
as highlighted by the reviewer.

All in all, this paper seems to be a simple exercise in determining the "optimal" amount of GQD
replacement for one particular set of materials, which probably has little or no generality to other
material sources.

Authors’ response: For an enhanced understanding on the GQD material for generalized application,
the mineralogy properties of the GQD used in the study was included in the revised manuscript in Figure
2 which located in line 271 to 272 for comparison with the mineralogy of Natural river sand in Figure 4
which located in line 286 to 287. The comparative statement is presented in Line 255 to 259.
It should be re-iterated that the primary aim of the work is to establish the suitability of the use of GQD
as a partial or complete sand replacement material for making structural mortar. At the end of the study,
it has been established that the GQD can be used either as a partial or complete replacement of natural
river sand. This is because there were no significant variation in the mechanical strength, durability
properties and length change behavior of the mortar with the inclusion of GQD as partial or complete
replacement of natural river sand in the mortar mix proportion. This point can be included as one of
the major conclusion of the study as well. Hence, the study is not a simple exercise to determine the
optimal amount of GQD replacement but a comprehensive investigation conducted to study the
possibility and the effects of the GQD for use as a partial or complete sand replacement in making
structural mortar. A comprehensive body of knowledge on the effect of GQD use as partial or complete
sand replacement on the mechanical strength, durability properties, length change behavior on drying
has been established in the study. The optimal amount of GQD is an additional finding for optimum use
of the GQD material.