Utilization of Coal Gangue Aggregate for Railway Roadbed Construction in Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is complete; the materials are well characterized; the construction methods are well described. I would have inserted a stress - strain analysis or the calculation of safety factor under dynamic load.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides detailed information of lab test results and field construction process and quality control of coal gangue materials applied in a railway roadbed construction project. The quality of the manuscript is good in terms of description of testing procedures, presentation and analysis of test data and results, and flow of thoughts.

In the introduction section, it is not clear whether coal gangue been used for roadbed construction in other engineering projects? Please add some more description of coal gangue, such as its source, engineering properties, engineering applications in other fields or projects.

The last paragraph of the Introduction section listed the tasks completed in this study. However, this manuscript lacks a description of objective of the study. Please add a clear description of research objectives before the last paragraph of the Introduction section.

For this particular project in which the coal gangue was used, has it been opened to the train traffic? If the answer is Yes, how is the performance of the CGRPC and roadbed after the railway has been subjected to repeated train loads for a period?

There are some typos or grammar errors in the manuscript. Some examples are listed below (note the list is not meant to be exhaustive):

Line 65, as the as the

Line 69, “the big rollers” should be “big rollers”.

Lines 80-81, “cracks were happened” should be “occurred”.

Line 85, this sentence is incomplete.

Line 102, “transverse diagram” may be replaced with “cross section”.

Line 120 and Line 144, “It’s” should be “Its”.

Line 126, “at the range” should be “in the range”.

Lines 131-132, “be happened” should be “happen”.

Line 141, “evaluating” should be “evaluate”.

Line 165, “that removed its inside natural water” may be replaced with “whose internal natural water had been removed”.

Line 168, “in China” should be “from China”.

Line 171, “after water added” should be “after water was added”.

Line 177, “following with the” should be “following a”.

Line 179, “reducing other variable factors” should be “reducing the confounding effect of other factors”.

Line 199, “cement hydrated” should be “cement hydration”.

Line 214, “raising” should be “rising”.

Line 230 and Line 385, “regression coefficient” should be “coefficient of determination” or “R-squared”.

Line 254, “being performed the n recycles” should be “the drying-wetting cycles”.

Line 255, “could” should be “can”.

Line 318-320, the sentence may be deleted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf