Strength Deterioration of Earthen Sites Loess Solidified by Calcined Ginger Nuts under Dry–Wet and Freeze–Thaw Cycles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. What methods are now being used to strengthen earthen sites loess? What are the disadvantages? What is the rationale for choosing GCN?
2. The notion of optimum humidity is used when preparing the mortar, but in natural conditions the humidity will not always correspond to this value. Have any studies been conducted on the effect of humidity on the behaviour of GCN mortar.
3. How will the performance of GCN be affected by the physical properties of the soils? For example, porosity and moisture content? Can the chemical composition of water in the soils affect the response in GCN?
4. In the absence of experimental data for samples with different physico-chemical properties, it is worth giving a theoretical justification for strengthening soils with a given solution. Or to show theoretically the resistance of GCN to changes in moisture and chemical composition of soils and water.
5. What was the moisture content of the soils in the cyclic thawing and freezing tests? Why was this moisture content of the sample chosen? This factor will have a significant impact on the result and must be justified. What is the degree of water saturation in the samples?
6. was the moisture content of the samples monitored at each freeze-thaw stage?
7. how was the influence of GCN concentration on the freezing point of soils taken into account? Were all the samples frozen solid? Was the amount of unfrozen water in the samples assessed at different GCN concentrations? The amount of stress in each cycle will depend on the amount of water in one aggregate state or another. Has this factor been taken into account?
8. How are the reinforcements planned for the actual objects to be carried out. Injection or tamponage? It is not quite clear from the text of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Li, Hu, et al. study the effects of CGNs on the strength of solidified soil after dry-wet and freeze-thaw cycles. The study reads interesting; however, I would suggest the authors work on the revision to improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript.
The authors should take care of correcting the English language. Below are just a few suggestions for the Abstract. Please also correct and revise throughout the main text other than Abstract.
L9: is a kind -> are
L9: which have important -> with significant
L10: the destruction
L11: the strength
L13: are unclear -> is unclear
L13: the deterioration
L13: the effects
L15: tests
L16: dosage increasing -> dosage increase
L16: With the dry-wet cycle number increasing
L16&L18: the strength
L17: turns flat
L17: the dry-wet process
L20: the freeze-thaw cycle number
L22: the resistance
1. Introduction
The authors should provide the novelty of this work clearly in Introduction. I see the background of the study and the reviews of previous publications but cannot find what this work newly provides to the readers.
2. Materials and Methods
- Please add the mean grain size of studied soil
- Any information regarding CGN (e.g., sizes and physical properties) within this Section? The information is also essential
- Should provide more explnations regarding shear strength test, more than just citing the paper. What type of shear strength test the authors used?
3. Result and analysis
- L119-121: The figure plotting CGN dosage versus shear strength will also be helpful (with different colours 100, 200, 300, 400 kPa)
- The authors should clearly explain how the authors define strength growth rate somewhere earlier
- L150-152: Should be quantitative. How different, how large, how small?
4. Discussion
- Please check whether Equations 3 and 4 are correct. If I am correct, equation 4 will be delta_ss = (2.3266 + 6.6076*exp(-0.269416*D_SGN)) * n^(0.6640*exp(0.00219*D_CGN)), not delta_ss = (2.3266 + 6.6076*exp(-0.3208*D_SGN)) * n^(0.6640*exp(0.00219*D_CGN)) using equation 3??
- Please append the R-square in Figure 8
5. Conclusions
- The conclusion should be more quantitative.
- Should append the item related to Discussion 4.1
The authors should take care of correcting the English language throughout the manuscript
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Calcined ginger nuts (CGN) is a non-toxicity, no pollution, and environment-friendly curing agent. CGN dosage, dry-wet and freeze-thaw cycles on property of CGN solidified soil were investigated. The results clarify the CGN can enhance resistance of earthen sites loess to dry-wet and freeze-thaw cycles. The article summarizes the research status well, and testing results is reliable. There are a few chart format errors and problems. I agree to accept the manuscript with minor revision. The detailed comments are presented below:
1. Figure 1 is suggested to be redrawn, please start from 100 for horizontal axis.
2. In section 2.3.1, please supplement the instruments details used in the direct shear test.
3. In section 2.3.3, more detailed procedures of freeze-thaw cycle tests should be given.
4. Some of the points in Figures 2, 4, and 5 have overlap, which is unclear. It is suggested that the figure can be changed into a combination of solid and hollow points.
5. Some parts of the article are irregular and unclear.
(1) The formula (1)-(4) in the article should be centered.
(2) Line229~230, Line238~240 and Line254, the variables should be shown in italics, and the subscript needs to be adjusted.
(3) The “dosage” in Table 2 is not clear, so it is suggested that it should be replaced by “dosage of CGN”.
6. The first paragraph of “Conclusions” needs to be improved to overview the main work of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The recommendations and comments of the reviewers have been taken into account by the authors when finalising the article. In my opinion, the article lacks a scientific justification for the possibility of applying this method of reinforcement, but in general the results obtained are sufficient for independent publication
Reviewer 2 Report
