Investigation and Preparation of the Plastering Mortar for Autoclaved Aerated Blocks Walls
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with the study of a plastering mortar for Autoclaved Aerated Concrete masonry.
The study of an appropriate plaster for AAC masonryis not a trivial problem. Published articles on the subject are almost absent in the literature, perhaps for industrial secrecy. For this reason, the proposed work is very interesting and certainly deserves to be published after some revisions
1) English must be revised throughout the manuscript
2) line 109: "...were performed freeze-thaw after 25 cycles.". Please correct after
3) line 114: "Thermal conductivity test has not been performed, because....dry density is related directly to thermal conductivity of the material". The authors could revise the sentence omitting that they have not done the tests.
4) line 127: "The scanning diffraction angle is 5°~80°" should be replaced with "The scanning diffraction 2θ angles range is.."
5) line 137: "the ratio of W/B increased." the acronym "W/B" for water-binder ratio has not been defined. Maybe the Authors should define W/B in the experimental part where they talk about it for the first time.
6) Line 164: "Figure 3. Comparative morphology; (a)EVSB; (b)expanded perlite." Please specify that the figure refers to SEM images
7) line 264: "can improve the stability of Aft in the late age,.." Please specify/correct Aft
8) There are two Figure 8: line 230 "Figure 8. Scanning electron micrograph of the mortar..." and line 250 "Figure 8. Influence of HPMC on the performance of fresh mortar" with related references in the text (line 223 and lines 246 and 245). Please correct Figure numbering
Author Response
The authors would like to thank anonymous Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: English must be revised throughout the manuscript.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. As review kindly suggested, we have revised the English throughout the paper carefully with a professional assistance.
Point 2: line 109: "...were performed freeze-thaw after 25 cycles.". Please correct after
Response 2: Thank you for your careful review. "...were performed freeze-thaw after 25 cycles." The original sentence does confuse the reader, so I made the following changes:” After immersing in water for two days, specimens which were cured for 28 days underwent 25 freeze-thaw cycles.” (line112 and 113)
Point 3: line 114: "Thermal conductivity test has not been performed, because....dry density is related directly to thermal conductivity of the material". The authors could revise the sentence omitting that they have not done the tests.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed the original sentence into the following form: “The thermal conductivity of the material was evaluated through the dry density of the mortar.” (line 118) In this way, the discussion of thermal conductivity in the article seems reasonable, and can omit that we have not done the tests.
Point 4: line 127: "The scanning diffraction angle is 5°~80°" should be replaced with "The scanning diffraction 2θ angles range is.."
Response 4: We are sorry for this colloquial mistake. We have carefully corrected the sentence: “The scanning diffraction 2θ angle was 5°~80°, and the scanning speed was 2°/min.” (line 130 and 131). Furthermore, we re-checked the entire article to avoid this error.
Point 5: line 137: "the ratio of W/B increased." the acronym "W/B" for water-binder ratio has not been defined. Maybe the Authors should define W/B in the experimental part where they talk about it for the first time.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Although we mentioned it in line 98, it should be defined in the discussion to avoid readers’ misunderstanding. We have corrected the sentence: “…as the W/B ratio (the ratio of water to the total mass of fly ash and cement) increased.” (line 141)
Point 6: Line 164: "Figure 3. Comparative morphology; (a)EVSB; (b)expanded perlite." Please specify that the figure refers to SEM images
Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made the corresponding changes:” Comparison of scanning electron microscope images; (a)EVSB; (b)expanded perlite.” (line 168)
Point7: line 264: "can improve the stability of Aft in the late age,.." Please specify/correct Aft
Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion, we have replaced the abbreviation Aft with the full name “ettringaite”. (line 272)
Point 8: There are two Figure 8: line 230 "Figure 8. Scanning electron micrograph of the mortar..." and line 250 "Figure 8. Influence of HPMC on the performance of fresh mortar" with related references in the text (line 223 and lines 246 and 245). Please correct Figure numbering
Response 8: Thank you for such a careful review. We have corrected Figure numbering and the corresponding number in the text. Furthermore, we re-checked the Table numbering to avoid this error.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We marked all the changes in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is well presented and very interesting from a scientific point of view. Some improvements are recommended:
- English revision is recommended
- The bibliography looks poor; it is advisable to look at the state of the art on this topic.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank anonymous Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Point 1: English revision is recommended.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. As review kindly suggested, we have revised the English throughout the paper carefully with a professional assistance.
Point 2: The bibliography looks poor; it is advisable to look at the state of the art on this topic
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. As suggested by the reviewer, we have searched for related articles before, but published articles on the subject are almost absent in the literature, perhaps for industrial secrecy. The existing articles are only about the establishment of structural failure models. So please kindly understand that we are not ignoring the reference to the latest technology. The mortar used for AAB walls is based on ordinary thermal insulation mortar, and puts forward higher requirements on the water retention, water absorption, crack resistance, toughness, frost resistance, thermal conductivity and workability of the mortar. So we have cited the latest technologies in these areas.
Special thanks to you for your good comments. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We marked all the changes in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
