Geotechnical Properties and Stabilization Mechanism of Nano-MgO Stabilized Loess

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presented the experimental study on geotechnical properties and stabilization mechanism of nano-MgO stabilized loess. Please find the following minor comments that required the authors to address in order to improve the merit of the paper:

1. Introduction: based on the reviewer's perspective, there are abundant literature reviews studied on a similar topic; thus a novelty of the current research is needed. 

2. The reasons why the authors used a Nuclear magnetic resonance test must be clearly addressed. 

3. Line 164-169: "The increase in w_opt was ...., and the lower the maximum density was."  This statement requires backup information or reference to support it; otherwise, it is hard to believe. 

4. Line 188-191: please give more reasons or phenomena why the NM content can improve the brittle behavior of the loess. 

5. Line 195: UCS and q_u seem to be duplicated abbreviations for unconfined compressive strength. Please recheck this to select only just one. 

6. Figure 9: more discussion is suggested to explain on the behavior of stabilized soil from various studies. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability

Manuscript ID: 2198465

Experimental study on geotechnical properties and stabilization mechanism of nano-MgO stabilized loess

by

Chen, Ni, Sun

 

 

REFEREE’S COMMENTS

 

This is an interesting paper on a subject that should be of great interest to many readers. However, it is not yet suitable for publication. For location of comments, see the belows.

 

1. Title:
2. It could be more compact/concise.
3. Abstract:
4. No need to use introductory level sentences.
5. It is recommended to give out some quantitative findings.
6. Introduction:
7. line 35-37; the literature review should be strengthened. For example, see the papers Construction and Building Materials 156, 443-467; Road materials and pavement design 15 (4), 872-891; Road Materials and Pavement Design 18 (4), 882-896; Road Materials and Pavement Design 20 (3), 702-714; Construction and Building Materials 58, 245-257; Environmental Earth Sciences 75 (9), 1-9; Geomechanics and Engineering 8 (1), 1-15; Transportation Geotechnics 23, 100342; Resources, Conservation and Recycling 155, 104679; Construction and Building Materials 82, 20-30; Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 23 (10), 1444-1452; Construction and Building Materials 114, 864-873; and many others available in the literature.
8. Last paragraph; the authors should clearly indicate the originality/novelty of her/his study.
9. Materials and Methods:
10. There are two "Figure 2" in the submission.
11. A location map would be very useful for possible international readers.
12. Can the authors provide any SEM pictures of the materials used in the tests?
13. line 123; how did the authors decide these values (both temperature and the curing time)?
14. Results and discussion:
15. line 174-193; the authors should discuss their findings with the results of papers already available in the literature.
16. line 199-200; what is the meaning of "So that, for NM-treated loess, experiencing 28 days of curing is to be expected"?
17. line 207-208; Colour selection in the Figure d better to change to have a much clear view.
18. How did the authors derive the Equation 1?
19. Figure 7; see the comment 17 above.
20. line 248-249; how did the authors derive the Equation 2?
21. line 266-267; the Figure should be explained in a much more clear way for potential readers.
22. line 286-287; how did the authors derive the Equation 3?
23. Stabilization mechanism:
24. Can the authors give the information here under the title of "Results and Discussion"?
25. Conclusion:
26. The authors should present their findings in a more quantitative manner.
27. In General:
28. Language of the text was found to be fine.
29. Quality of the Figures is poor, and needs to be improved.
30. Check out the details of the references cited.
31. Recently published papers should be cited through the text.
32. Strengthen the literature review.
33. It would better to use light-gray-dotted-grid lines in the plot areas of the Figures in order to follow the change clearly.

 

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

(1) It is recommended to provide some pictures of the test processes, such as the consistency limits and compaction test, unconfined compression test, and nuclear magnetic resonance test.

(2) It is better to provide the cures of wopt and ρdmax varying with the adding NM.

(3) Why do the authors choose Equation 1 to describe the relationship between UCS and these factors?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is clearly written, giving good understanding of the methods used for studying geotechnical properties and stabilization mechanism of nano-MgO stabilized loess. The experimental protocols were clearly explained and the obtained results seem to be valid.

Empirical formulas were proposed for use, but to complete their role they need to be applied on many other samples for a valid interpretation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

-