Flexural Performance of Basalt-Fiber-Grid-Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Slabs: Experimental Study and Numerical Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following are the comments/suggestions for related to the research article submitted:

Line 43: Please mention specifically about EFNARC standards with their references     

Figure 4: Author did not specify that the Constitutive curves of experimental materials are applicable to which type of concrete and is this constitutive model is applicable to all grades of concrete?

Figure 4: Did author validate the use of constitutive curves on their experimental data by performing compression and tension tests?

Is the testing of slab compression-control? As Figure 4 depicts that the constitutive model of concrete is depicting elastic-plastic behavior

Is there any experimental evidence of MWC model accuracy to the current experimental data?

Line 128: Why did basalt fiber mesh model as an elastic material? Any specific reason?

Figure 4c: Is the constitutive relationship of Basalt grid from literature? Or developed by the authors?

Does ANSYS supports HSD2 exponential softening and HSD6 linear softening model? Is this buil-in model in ANSYS? Please clarify, why did this model selected? As there is no experimental evidence of the suitability of the model as a reason of selection.

Is there any specific reason for failure strain threshold of the basalt fiber grid set as 0.015. Is this referred from literature? As this is not mentioned in the Basalt fibre grid properties mentioned in Table 1.

Line 136-141: What is the basis of Numerical simulation input values in this study?

Line 144: What is the basis of selecting friction coefficient of 0.2? Is this referred from some literature or is it built in value in ANSYS?

Table 4: This table is divided in 4 Section. What is the difference in Ultimate Simulated Load in the first section (e.g. 44.71, 49.80, 51.72, and 66.40 kN) and 3^rd section (44.39, 48.57, 50.49, and 63.71 kN) and their corresponding deflection values? This is a confusion, please either explain in the text body or add a separate row with the difference.

Figure 5: What does mean by Legend “Text Value”?

Figures 12 and 14 are creating a confusion as they show the only simulated load-deflection curve of single and double -layer basalt fiber grid concrete with various locations. It is suggested to exclude this as it is just numerically simulated results, which are not validated with experimental results.

Similarly, the regression equations are developed only based on the simulated results presented in Figures 12 and 14, which are required its experimental validation. Therefore, proposing regression model based on only simulated results is a question itself.

Relevant conclusion related to proposed regression equation and Figures 12 and 14 must be excluded.

Please cite latest research articles. Very few research articles are cited with the last 5 yeas span.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is found to be fair enough

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the scientific rigor of this paper. We have carefully addressed all the suggestions through comprehensive revisions, as detailed in the attached response letter. We are truly grateful for your time and expertise.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Novelty is absent, focusing solely on the idea of using simulation instead of experimental study due to its time and cost effectiveness.

Significance is not discussed in the introduction or as a separate section. Are there any applications of basalt grid in real-time projects,s specifically in thin-walled construction?

Authors explored the use of basalt grids in normal thickness slab, while application of basalt is in pipes (references 8 and 9 of the same Authors) or thin-walled structures. Why?

Line 76: "The reinforced slabs were constructed via a layered casting process.." The coarse aggregate is 10 mm in size, while the layer thickness, as mentioned, is also 10 mm. How is it possible to lay the layer and compact it?

Also, in thin-walled applications, coarse aggregates are not used. So, why did not choose a mix without coarse aggregates?

N90-1 has a basalt layer at 0 distance from the bottom. Why is no concrete cover provided to the grid on this sample? This surely affects the performance of the basalt single-layer sample.

The authors used SOLID185 in ANSYS, which is a general-purpose 3D solid element. Why not SOLID65, which is often preferred for behaviour like cracking and crushing?

Where are the mechanical properties of concrete used?

Line 117: "elastic modulus of structural steel is 210000 MPa with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.." Do authors use reinforcement in modelling? The physical specimen looks only reinforced with a basalt grid?

There is a need to show visuals of the model developed in Ansys with boundary conditions and loading parameters.

The conclusion barely mentions the percentages, and in-depth views and recommendations are not present.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The reviewers' insightful comments have substantially enhanced the scientific rigor of this manuscript. We have meticulously addressed all suggestions through comprehensive revisions, as documented in the attached response letter. We remain deeply grateful for these constructive recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic in the field of non-metallic reinforcement for concrete structures and the application of finite element modeling in structural analysis. However, despite its practical potential, the work does not fully meet the standards expected of high-quality international scientific publications. The paper presents a technically sound numerical study but lacks scientific depth, critical discussion, and methodological rigor, particularly in the experimental part.

1. Novelty and Scientific Contribution

The research topic is not new. The use of basalt fiber grids and FEM-based analysis in concrete slab applications has already been widely investigated.

The authors fail to clearly define the knowledge gap their work addresses. There is no meaningful comparison with existing approaches in the literature.

The novelty of the paper lies primarily in the breadth of parametric simulations, which, in isolation, is not sufficient for a strong contribution without deeper theoretical insights or experimental validation.

2. Methodology

The experimental program is extremely limited—only four specimens were tested (one plain concrete control and three reinforced slabs). This is insufficient to draw statistically meaningful conclusions. No standard deviation, error bars, or uncertainty quantification is provided.

The mechanical properties of the basalt grid were introduced with limited detail. The process for determining key input parameters (e.g., modulus of elasticity, tensile strain limit) is not explained or validated.

The assumption of linear elasticity for the reinforcement model (REINF264) may not fully represent the complex behavior of fiber grids embedded in a cracking concrete matrix.

The assumed friction coefficient of 0.2 at the support interfaces is arbitrary and lacks justification, despite its potential impact on slab performance under two-way bending.

3. Figures and Data Presentation

Several plots and diagrams are poorly formatted and lack professional quality. Axes labels are too small or unclear, and some figures appear auto-generated without proper formatting.

There is visual redundancy in figures (e.g., Figures 7–9 and 10–11 show overlapping content). These could be consolidated and presented more concisely.

Some figures lack scale bars or units, making quantitative interpretation difficult.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the scientific rigor of our manuscript. We have carefully implemented all suggestions through comprehensive revisions, as detailed in the attached response document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors are requested to modifyfy Manuscript as per response given against the comments in first round.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are incorporated.