Field Studies on Expansive Soil Stabilization with Nanomaterials and Lime for Flexible Pavement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
this study is aimed to improve expansive soil by using different methods of stabilizations. The topic is of interest and the study is comprehensive. The approach and experimental program as well as data analysis are sound leading to reliable conclusions
My main criticism towards this study is the lack of novelty. The usage of theses types of stabilizations has been tried and performed widely. Even the authors mentioned another study which has studied it. Also, all tests done are very basic. Therefore, I think authors must be able to justify the novelty of their research in a separate section like 'goals and objectives'. There you should also describe the research limitations and contribution to the body of the literature.
-The Introduction is very general. It must discuss the studies done on this topic with showing their main shortcomings. In addition, knowledge gap should be clarified clearer. The rest of the introduction can be moved to a separate section as literature review
the results are presented more like a report. The discussion of results is not very enlightening, please provide in-depth discussion of results.
For all bar figures, when applicable, please add error bars.
In conclusion, a paragraph is needed to briefly describe the study and then goes to concluding remarks.
- check reference no in line 263
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
- My main criticism towards this study is the lack of novelty. The usage of theses types of stabilizations has been tried and performed widely. Even the authors mentioned another study which has studied it. Also, all tests done are very basic. Therefore, I think authors must be able to justify the novelty of their research in a separate section like 'goals and objectives'. There you should also describe the research limitations and contribution to the body of the literature.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript the novelty of study is included and the ‘goals and objectives’ section included after literature review as suggested by the reviewer. The limitation of the study also included in goals and objectives section.
- The Introduction is very general. It must discuss the studies done on this topic with showing their main shortcomings. In addition, knowledge gap should be clarified clearer. The rest of the introduction can be moved to a separate section as literature review.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript the introduction rewritten, and divided into two parts as suggested by the reviewer.
- The results are presented more like a report. The discussion of results is not very enlightening, please provide in-depth discussion of results.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript the results and discussion part rewritten as suggested by the reviewer.
- For all bar figures, when applicable, please add error bars.
As suggested by the reviewer, the error bars add to the figures in the revised manuscript.
- In conclusion, a paragraph is needed to briefly describe the study and then goes to concluding remarks.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript the conclusions rewritten as suggested by the reviewer.
- check reference no in line 263
The error made in reference has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
In the introduction, the knowledge about the stabilization of black cotton soil should be improved
Line 17 gap between 1 and kg/cum Shouldn't m3 be in the SI system?
Line 28 improve keywords, why numbers next to keywords?
Line 34-36 "old" materials do not ensure sustainable and economical construction?
Line 49-50 and 51-52 this seems like unnecessary repetition
Table 1 - 4 Please provide testing standards for each parameter
Line 142 gap between 1 and kg/cum
Line 150 use SI units instead of cc
Line 156 provide the standard date here and everywhere
Line 158 How was stiffness determined using the CBR method? Stiffness is a physical parameter that can be expressed numerically. you are probably referring to the formula 17.6xCBR^0.64; describe it in detail citing the literature
Figure 2 and the following results All results should be given with uncertainty (deviations)
Line 263 Error! Reference 263 source not found..
Chapter 6. The calculations assume one stage of pavement operation. Doesn't the modulus of the mix decrease during layer cracking? See criteria for semi-rigid pavement
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
- Line 17 gap between 1 and kg/cum Shouldn't m3 be in the SI system?
As suggested by the reviewer, a gap is provided between the 1 and unit and also the units written in the SI units in the revised manuscript.
- Line 28 improve keywords, why numbers next to keywords?
The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the keyword improved in the revised manuscript.
- Line 34-36 "old" materials do not ensure sustainable and economical construction?
The sentence has been rewritten in the revised manuscript.
“Innovative techniques are required to make the expansion of the road network sustainable, from economic and environmental perspectives”.
- Line 49-50 and 51-52 this seems like unnecessary repetition
The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the repeated sentence was removed (lines 51-52) in the revised manuscript.
- Table 1 - 4 Please provide testing standards for each parameter
As suggested by the reviewer, the testing standards are included in the revised manuscript.
- Line 142 gap between 1 and kg/cum
The error made in line 142 has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
- Line 150 use SI units instead of cc
As suggested by the reviewer, the SI units used in the revised manuscript.
- Line 156 provide the standard date here and everywhere
The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the standard date has been added to the revised manuscript.
- Line 158 How was stiffness determined using the CBR method? Stiffness is a physical parameter that can be expressed numerically. you are probably referring to the formula 17.6xCBR^0.64; describe it in detail citing the literature.
The authors agree with the reviewer, the study demonstrated the impact of change in CBR in the pavement design wherein the stiffness is considered for calculation which is taken from the IRC 37:2018. Cited
- Figure 2 and the following results all results should be given with uncertainty (deviations)
As suggested by the reviewer, the figure has been modified by adding the error bars in the figures in the revised manuscript.
- Line 263 Error! Reference 263 source not found.
The error made in reference has been addressed in the revised manuscript.
- Chapter 6. The calculations assume one stage of pavement operation. Doesn't the modulus of the mix decrease during layer cracking? See criteria for semi-rigid pavement.
The pavement design is controlled by the CBR of the subgrade soil which ranges between 8% to 15% limiting the deflection of the subgrade soil. The increased CBR in pavement reduces the crust considerably resulting in optimisation of the project cost. The study demonstrated how the less CBR subgrade soil can be treated using the combination of lime & chemical. The cracks developed in the surface are being encapsulated by the thin layer of chemicals which does not allow the water to penetrate through it. Since the subbase layers are not treated there is no crack in the layer and the consideration of semi-rigid pavement is not considered.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Report
The authors presented an article titled “Field Studies on the Expansive Soil Stabilization with Nano-material’s & Lime for Flexible Pavement”. This article falls within the scope of the "Sustainability" journal. However, the article will be ready for publication after a major revision. Comments are listed below.
1. A sentence about the numerical results can be given in the summary section.
2. More recent references can be given in the introduction.
3. In introduction section, instead of mentioning contributions of the authors separately, only provide what kinds of studies have been carried out so far. You are recommended to form a table for a summary of the studies carried by the authors cited.
4. There is no nomenclature section; it must be introduced mandatorily to make the paper understanding easier.
5. The contribution of the research to the relevant literature should be defined in a better way. Authors should clearly establish which the novelty of the work is. What is really new in this paper? What is the difference with other previously published works on the subject?
6. Experimental section should be sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work.
7. It would be appropriate to give an experimental scheme in the materials and methods section.
8. How important are your research findings to industries? What are its implications?
9. Results sections are generally devoid of discussion. Previous similar studies in the literature should be compared and discussed.
10. Kindly provide some recommendations for future studies in conclusion section. Also, the conclusion section is too long. It should be shortened.
11. The article contains numerous typographic and language errors. It should be corrected.
12. The article should be rearranged by taking into account the journal writing rules and citation rules.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.
- A sentence about the numerical results can be given in the summary section.
The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, a sentence about the numerical results was added in the summary section of the revised manuscript.
- More recent references can be given in the introduction.
As suggested by the reviewer, recent references added in the revised manuscript
- In introduction section, instead of mentioning contributions of the authors separately, only provide what kinds of studies have been carried out so far. You are recommended to form a table for a summary of the studies carried by the authors cited.
The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the introduction was rewritten in the revised manuscript.
- There is no nomenclature section; it must be introduced mandatorily to make the paper understanding easier.
The nomenclature section has been added after conflict of interest in the revised manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer.
- The contribution of the research to the relevant literature should be defined in a better way. Authors should clearly establish which the novelty of the work is. What is really new in this paper? What is the difference with other previously published works on the subject?
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, the authors modified the novelty of the work in the revised manuscript.
- Experimental section should be sufficiently detailed to allow others to reproduce the work.
The experimental section (3.1 Method) is added in the revised manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer.
- It would be appropriate to give an experimental scheme in the materials and methods section.
The experimental scheme (Figure 2) is added in the revised manuscript, as suggested by the reviewer.
- How important are your research findings to industries? What are its implications?
Expansive soil is prone to severe volume changes due to the presence of water thereby making it unsuitable for construction. By treating the soil with chemicals, the effect of water on the treated soil can be minimized. This study will help the construction industries to utilize the stabilized expansive soil and minimize the construction cost.
- Results sections are generally devoid of discussion. Previous similar studies in the literature should be compared and discussed.
As suggested by the reviewer, the error bars add to the figures in the revised manuscript.
- Kindly provide some recommendations for future studies in conclusion section. Also, the conclusion section is too long. It should be shortened.
The authors thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, recommendations for future studies are included in the revised manuscript
“The study can be further extended by constructing a semi-field test track consisting of a different dosage of chemical and lime with expansive soil. Collection of the data for a longer period of time to find the efficiency of stabilization in real field condition”.
- The article contains numerous typographic and language errors. It should be corrected.
As suggested by the reviewer, corrected all formatting errors and orphan texts in the revised manuscript
- The article should be rearranged by taking into account the journal writing rules and citation rules.
As suggested by the reviewer, the manuscript was revised as per the journal's requirements
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No further comments as all my comments were addressed by the authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
thanks for the changes
no further comments
kind regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors completed the necessary revisions. This article may be accepted for publication in its final form.
