Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Pervious Concrete with Steel Fiber or Glass Fiber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the article is interesting and I thank you for preparing it.
Here is the evaluation of the individual parts:
The title and abstract are fine.
The introduction is quite extensive and it would be useful to add sub-sections.
The summary of information in the introduction is interesting and sufficient - there are not many references - I recommend to take inspiration from the evaluation of other concretes with fibres - e.g:
10.3390/buildings11100489
10.3390/buildings12030279

Chapter 2 - should have separate subchapters for material and also for experiments and for individual evaluations - the content is fine but you have a problem with dividing the text and it is confusing. 

There are no references to standards- just the name of the standard is not enough. 

The results are as expected .
I rate the large study positively - many concretes. 

The conclusions are as expected - but Figure 13,14,15 clearly show the inconsistency with the formulation according to the equation you are talking about - how can you consider this appropriate?

Notes:
- graphs are weird, poor quality, need to unify style and improve everything,
- the article contains many errors and typos - it needs to be read thoroughly.  

Author Response

Many thanks for your time and efforts.

Please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well organized and well written. However, for acceptance, the authors need to do the following: 

• provide meaningful conclusions.
• compare results with nonpervious.
• justify the observed behavior, for example, the increase in permeability and strength due to steel fiber . 

Author Response

Many thanks for your time and efforts.

Please see the attached response letter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

all comments were fullfilled