Effect of Viroc Conduct under Compression on the Mechanical Characteristics of Sustainable Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1.The composition of materials are closely related to their mechanical properties．What is the composition of Viroc given in Table 1?
2.The content that can be simplified in the paper should be simplified. For example, in section 3.4, it is not necessary to specifyeach part of this kinds of conventional experimental equipment in detail.
3.The content that needs to be explained in detail should be discussed. For example, in section 3.2, detailed explanations should be provided on the preparation process, material composition, and also the number of test specimens.
4.Figures 5-9 are not clear enough. They should be redrawn．
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Please refer to the attachment for your reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript studied that incorporating pinewood in concrete increases the compression strength and modulus of the composite but also increased its brittleness. The results indicate that this new type of Viroc composite material is environmentally friendly and suitable for structural use in construction.
Here are my feedbacks for improvement:
1. I enjoy reading the introduction of this manuscript that the author has offered good background. However, more citations are needed since the author is basically rephrase/summarizes the findings by other researchers. I also suggest combining section 1 introduction, section 1.1 literature review, and section 2 Research Background to make the introduction more coherent.
2. Figures 5-9, Figure 11, and Figure 12 are in low resolution. It is very difficult to see legends clearly.
3. The curve in Figure 9 looks quite different than the rest, with overall less smooth and the load increase-decrease-increase. Why is that?
4. Why the values in Table 3 only reflect the compression test result of sample #5? I suggest a statistical analysis based on the average and standard deviation of all samples. Accordingly, the values in the paragraph should also be updated.
5. I cannot see “yield strength” and “ultimate strength” in Figure 13 since the lines in the plot seem to be straight. Which sample did the author used to plot the red experiment line in Figure 13? It should be clarified.
In Table 1, there are a few listed numbers need to be corrected. Like Swelling (24 hrs) 1,5%, it should be 1.5%. Similarly, the values for Internal bond and Thermal conductivity have a comma. I found it confusing. Line 241, “4, 0.5” should be “4+/- 0.5”.
I suggest a sanity check throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions. Please refer to the attachment for your reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be considered for publication
Author Response
Reviewer #1 Round #1:
The manuscript can be considered for publication
Response: Thank you very much. I attached the modified manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made some improvement to the manuscript to address my questions and concerns. However, the key results in the manuscript lack scientific rigor. As evidence in (1) lacking adequate citation in the introduction; (2) lacking repeated mechanical tests to show statistical results. Therefore, the presentation quality and data interpretation are still low.
English used in this manuscript can be understood clearly.
Author Response
Reviewer #2 Round #2:
- As evidence in (1) lacking adequate citation in the introduction.
Response: Thank you. I accepted your suggestion and revised the manuscript by adding more citations in introduction lines 32-34 and lines 60-63 and I made some changes in the introduction and literature review include the new references.
- Lacking repeated mechanical tests to show statistical results. Therefore, the presentation quality and data interpretation are still low. composition of materials are closely related to their mechanical properties.
Response: Thank you. I accepted your suggestion, and it is not repeated. I can say to make sure that the mechanical properties are valid, and my compression test is correct. In addition, for example Table 3. The strain was not mentioned in table 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has made some improvement, so the manuscript can be considered for publishing.
