Experimental Study on Strength of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Cemented Silt Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I studied your manuscript entitled "Experimental study on strength improvement of silt soil by cement combined with polypropylene fiber". In my opinion, your paper was written hastily and some spaces need to be improved in terms of journal quality. I recommend major revision before further consideration for publication in the Applied Sciences.
1) It would be helpful if the abstract and conclusion sections contained some more quantitative data.
2) The research question is not very well stated and discussed. The authors have to complete their investigation taking a look at the recently published papers to clarify the findings of particular interest.
3) How you can evaluate the interfacial strength between fiber and matrix?
4) From my point of view, you should use more experiments to evaluate samples. It is better to present the stress-strain data in the form of tables (with error bars) to make a better comparison.
5) Figure captions could provide more details, so that readers will not have to go back to the experimental section for necessary details. For Figures 7 and 8, scale bars are needed.
6) English language needs some polishing. The Paper's title is also recommended to be revised.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper discusses the impact of the addition of the cement and the polypropylene fibers to silty soil on the strength of this weak soil. The scope is well related to the sustainable environmental geotechnics and it is of interest to the geotechnical community.
In my opinion the manuscript is interesting but poorly explained. The work has a laboratory nature. Unfortunately the test procedure is unclear. For this reason, Dear Authors, the paper requires some explanations before it can be accepted for publication. Particular attention is needed at the following:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
(1) TESTS DESCRIPTION: There is no section on tests description.
- Please specify precisely what type of tests were performed, under what conditions (e.g. shear velocity), on how many samples, etc.
- Please specify the method and range of deformation measurement as well as the accuracy of the sensors.
(2) ALL FIGURES:
- Poor quality of the graphs. The poorly visible inscriptions on the drawing (and on the axes). Please enlarge the font.
- In the title of the Figures, there is no information about which tests the graphs relate to.
(3) “Weak soil” - Please provide a definition and relevant criteria for weak soils.
(4) The title of the Section should be followed by text before Figures appear (see section 2.2 and Figure 2; section 2.3 and Figure 3, etc.).
(5) Please comment whether the presented conclusions are appropriate for other cohesive soils?
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
(6) Page 1, Abstract:
Please explain the meaning of toughness in relation to the soil.
(7) Sections 2 and 2.1:
In the section titles, please specify which tests you mean.
(8) Section 2.1:
Please present a photo of one of the samples.
(9) Tables 1 and 2:
- Please complete the table titles on the information from where the parameter values were taken. Are the parameters in the tables the results of your own tests?
- You should standardize the notation and consistently give the symbols and the units even such as “(-)”. For example “Relative density of particle/-”, etc.
(10) Table 3:
I don't understand the description for level 1. What is the point of specifying the fibers length (3 mm) since their content is 0%?
(11) Tables 4 and 5:
Please explain what do the numbers 1, 2, 3 or 4 in columns 1-3 mean? I suppose those are levels numbers. Therefore, it should rather be written for example "Level/Cement dosage" and correspondingly below in the column: 1/9%, etc.
(12) Page 5, lines 165-174:
The description of the test procedure is completely inconsistent.
- Firstly, "the unconfined compressive strength" is related to the uniaxial compression test, not the triaxial test. Earlier (Abstract, section 2.1) nothing was mentioned about uniaxial compression studies.
- Secondly, the text "Unconsolidated undrained (UU) shear (...)" refers to the triaxial test, but its place in the description suggests that it is related to the uniaxial compression test.
- Thirdly, "After the unconfined compressive strength test, the samples were placed in the oven (...)"- does this mean that the samples after the triaxial test were not dried (this description refers to the uniaxial compression test)?
- Summarizing, please specify precisely what tests were performed and under what conditions.
(13) Table 5:
“UCS” - Please explain the abbreviation.
(14) Table 6:
Too long explanation about Ki, ki, R, A, B, C, as a legend form for the Table. This description (and more detailed) should be part of the main text.
- How were A, B and C determined?
- Where do the values 0.34, 0.38, 048 and 0.58 come from when calculating K1A?
(15) Page 7, l. 209:
It should be: "Figure 2 shows (…)" instead of “Fig. 2 shows (…)”.
(16) Page 8, Figure 3:
“Molar circle and strength envelope of fiber cement soil” - What was the cement content?
(17) Table 7?
- Please explain what do the 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4% in the first line mean?
- What are they: a3, b1?
(18) Page 10, Equations (6) – (8):
Please explain all the symbols in the equations.
(19) Table 8:
- Lack of the unit for the s3.
- Please explain what do the 0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4% in the first line mean?
(20) Page 12, Figure 7:
“Failure mode of fiber cement soil” - What was the cement content?
(21) Page 12, l. 337:
It should be: "Figure 7 shows (…)" instead of “Fig. 7 shows (…)”.
(22) Page 13, Figure 8:
“Fiber distribution in cement soil” - What was the cement content?
(23) Page 13, l. 359:
It should be: "Figure 8a shows (…)" instead of “Fig. 8a shows (…)”.
(24) Conclusions:
What are the further plans for the development of this issue?
Good luck!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering my comments. I have recommended the publication of your paper as is.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I thank you for take account of almost all my comments and suggestions. However, further corrections are required in the text:
(1) All symbols used in Abstract and for the first time in the main text should be preceded by the full name: CBR (p. 2, l. 78), UCS (p. 2, l. 90), SEM (p. 4, l. 168).
(2) Chapter titles should not contain the abbreviations. See the titles of sections 2, 3, 3.1.
(3) Page 4, l. 152 and Table 2 : You should give a reference to the merchants, e.g. a link to the website.
(4) Figures 5-9: Still poorly visible inscriptions on the drawing, and on the axes.
After taking into account the above comments, I recommend your manuscript for publication.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
