A Study on the Mechanical Properties and Microcosmic Mechanism of Basalt Fiber Modified Rubber Ceramsite Concrete
, Dongxu Zhu 1,2, Lei Liu 1,2, Xinyu Lu 1,2, Yi Sun 1,2,*, Zhitao Yan 1,2,*, Linwen Yu 3 and Qike Wei 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Page 3, Chapter 2.2.2. The splitting tensile strength was determined only at the concrete age of 28 days? Why it was not tested at 3 days as in the case of concrete compressive strength?
Page 10. The uniformity levels provided in Table 5 are not attributed to any experimental results provided in the article.
From the conclusions, it is not clear enough which composition of rubber content and basalt fibre content and length is the best solution according to experimental results.
The values of the results of concrete compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, moisture could be provided in a separate Table. Additionally, values of the results could be provided in Figures 1-3.
The last two sentences on the 1st page and the first two sentences on the 2nd page are not necessary, because it repeats the information provided previously.
Page 2, Paragraph 2 states „Ceramsite concrete is mainly used in the bearing structure as wall material, on the basis of meeting the basic strength requirement, more hope it has good plasticity and impact resistant ability, etc., and these requirements can be realized through adding rubber aggregate [7,29,35], this is also the ceramsite concrete as base material.” However, reference 7 and 29 seems to be not related to ceramsite concrete or rubber aggregate.
Page 4, Chapter 2.3. “The result analysis simplified the grouping into a- B - C form.” Maybe it should be capital A instead of a?
Page 5, Paragraph 4. “FIG.2 also shows the influence of different rubber content on compressive strength.” FIG.2 should be corrected.
Page 6. The numbering (Figure 1) of the Figure is not correct. Figure 1 is already presented on page 5.
Page 7. The numbering (Figure 2) of the Figure is not correct. Figure 2 is already presented on page 6.
Page 8 Figure 6. In Figure 6 “a” letter is missing.
The view in Figure 8 is not very clear compared to Figure 9. Additionally, Figure 8 is almost identical to Figure 10 and the same looking part of the pictures is called differently. In Figure 8 it is Fibre and in Figure 10 it is rubber.
Page 10, Paragraph 2 starts with "Figure 14 and 15 compare...". However, there are no such Figures in the text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions and help, we have revised the paper in response to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written and organized. Paper is accepted
Author Response
Thank you very much for acknowledging our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript in the present form is not satisfy to accept. But, it has to be completely corrected both technically and English.
The reviewer comments should be completely consider for modifications before re-submission.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions and help, we have revised the paper in response to your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
