Concretes Made of Magnesium–Silicate Rocks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
This manuscript presents an interesting study concerning the use of magnesium-silicate rocks as aggregates.
Please find in the attached document some suggestions that should be taken into account in order to improve your manuscript so it can reach a publishing quality.
I also recommend the revision of the written English by an English speaking person as some sentences are a bit difficult to understand.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the Reviewers for their work, friendly attitude and valuable comments on the presented article. They agree with the comments and respond to them.
Reply to First Reviewer
Line 47. Agree with the remark. The word is not translated correctly.
Line 49. Correct the sentence.
Line 83. Redo the text between lines 42 and 84.
Line 101.
Line 128. Change the font under Table 1.
Line 134. It has been specified that from the olivine group only magnesian olivine, close to forsterite, is represented.
Line 138. The sentence has been changed.
Lines 155 and 159. The question is not clear!
Line 166. The standards are included in the list of references.
Line 205. The paragraph has been redone.
Line 278. During the research, natural sand of various sizes was used as a fine aggregate in concretes. The aim of this work was to show that dunite sand can be used in concrete without any preparation (without additional dispersion). At the same time, the physical and mechanical characteristics of the materials obtained are not lower than that of the standard sample.
Line 297.
Line 317. The authors fully agree with the Reviewer. This sentence has been incorrectly translated by the translator.
Line 345. The authors mean that magnesium silicate rocks were simultaneously used as coarse and fine aggregates in concrete. This proposal has been revised.
Line 372. The list of references is corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
There are comments which are shown as sticky notes in the text. In general a seriously revised version of the manuscript is needed, in order to reach high quality presentation standards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the Reviewers for their work, friendly attitude and valuable comments on the presented article. They agree with the comments and respond to them.
Line 10. Line 16. The data presented in this article is the average of three parallel definitions. This is indicated in clause 2.2.1 of the article.
Lines 19 and 24. The resulting concrete is not magnesian. Magnesia concrete is a composition of caustic magnesite (a product of MgCO3 fired at temperatures up to 700 ° C in the form of MgO) and magnesium salts, mainly MgCl2 and MgSO4. We get concrete, where magnesium silicate rocks are used as aggregates, and water is used as a grout.
Line 42.
Line 46. Agree with the remark. The word is not translated correctly.
Line 50. Yes, this is silicate sand.
Line 66.
Line 72. The proposal added a view of the tailings of enrichment.
Line 82.
Line 85.
Line 87.
Line 88.
Line 92.
Line 96.
Line 126.
Lines 132-134.
Lines 137, 192, Figures 5, 6. The authors believe that for the submitted article, the X-ray diffraction patterns of the raw materials are sufficient, and a Table with the XRD mineralogical analysis is not required.
Lines 143, 144, 149. From the title of Figure 3 it can be seen that the granulometric composition of crushed stone, including granite, is presented. We do not use granite sand. The work used crushed granite and quartz sand from the deposits of the Republic of Buryatia, Russia.
Line 171. Dunite sand does not contain minerals of the asbestos group.
Line 222. The authors believe that this material is presented in the Materials and Methods section and that this arrangement is more convenient for them.
Lines 291, 300.
Line 308. Agree with the remark. The text has been moved to clause 2.2.2.
Line 330.
Line 336. The authors believe that these developments can be applied where there are sources of magnesium silicate rocks. The developed technology is not tied to one country.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and well written. It deals with the use of residual magnesium-silicate rocks in the production of concretes, and its publication is recommended after some improvements listed below.
TITLE
due to the analysis of the paper, the title is not adequate. What is the new type of concrete produced? For me it is just heavy concrete (due to the higher density of the incorporated residual aggregate) ... there is nothing incredibly special that characterizes it as a "new type of concrete".
INTRODUCTION
In the introduction, the authors do not mention the potential volume of magnesium-silicate rock residue available for use. I consider this point of great importance in the context of using waste in concrete, since concrete is used in large quantities, with a demand for high volumes of natural or residual aggregates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The first paragraph is not a method (it is a literature review) - switch to the introduction topic. Indicate whether there is an ASTM cement corresponding to the cement used in the study. See notes in the body of the manuscript. Please include the dosage table for the produced concrete, with a detailed description of the material consumptions.
Were the concretes produced without the use of admixtures? explain the reasons for this.
RESULTS
The first paragraph is a method. Move to the correct item.
To reduce fluidity, the authors make this statement "It is influenced by the size and shape 259 of aggregates". However, the shape coefficient of the studied aggregates was not evaluated.
Please explain with data/information from the literature.
Also indicate the importance of using superplasticizers to compensate for the loss of fluidity.
Results on ice and thaw performance and abrasion are not presented or discussed. In this regard, I request that they be presented and well discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
Maintain conclusions about ice and thaw and abrasion only if data are presented and discussed.
Indicate at the end of the conclusions that tests related to the chemical degradation aspects of the concretes produced with the waste under study are also necessary.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the Reviewers for their work, friendly attitude and valuable comments on the presented article. They agree with the comments and respond to them.
Remark 1 Title. The title of the article has been corrected.
Remark 2 Introduction. Added text about the volumes of magnesium silicate rocks in the Introduction.
Remark 3 Materials and methods. Dosage of raw materials added in 2.2.1. During the research, standard cement was used. The concretes were made without additives, because this was not the purpose of the ongoing research.
Remark 4 Results and discussion. Added figure 7 on the shape of sand particles. The results of research on frost resistance and abrasion are inserted into the text of the article.
Remark 5 Conclusions. Added paragraph in conclusions.
- Figures 3, 4.
- Table 2, Table 4. There should be edits from the Editor.
Line 213. Fix it.
Lines 248-252. The text has been moved to clause 2.2.2.
Line 259. This is an erroneous underscore.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, the new version of the manuscript needs a thorough re-writing in much better english. Before starting the chapter of the analytical results, you have to define all analytical techniques you have used. The chemical analyses have to have the total % at the end..
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewers for their analysis of the article and helpful remarks and respond.
- Table 1 has been corrected (added general %).
- The note under Table 1 has been corrected. The methods used have been moved to 2.2.2.
- The brands of the materials used has been added.
