Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Compacted Clay–Sand Layers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A submitted paper seems to be interesting for the readers of geo engineers to consider the suitable conditions for compaction of the shallow pavement. However, it is not well written and organized in the current manuscript, unfortunately. The authors should reconsider the structure of paper and write the manuscript carefully with paying attention to reduce the careless mistakes. It is therefore that the reviewer recommends as the major revision for acceptance. Several comments identified in the quick review are noted below for the revision of the manuscript.

-   Abstract: No concrete descriptions obtained through the present study to reflect the general guidelines are shown. It should be summarized shortly.

-   Section 2 of “Soil penetration background” should be included in Section 1 “Introduction”. Additionally, it should be rewritten to show clearly the subject of application of current standard method to apply for the practical case and the objective of the present study.

-   Table 1: unit of oxide ratio is not % but wt. %. Lack of total in the table.

-   No description of citing Fig. 3 and 4 in the manuscript. Should check it carefully.

-   Not easy to read the manuscript since the insert part of Figures and Tables are not suitable, for example, from Fig.3 to Fig.14 and Table 2. Should be corrected.

-   Careless mistakes of figure caption for test case of 5% and 10%, for example, should be 10 % for Fig.7.

-   Results and discussions parts should be described separately. If the authors would like to propose the recommendation to the standard test method, discussions to criticize the standard method would be important.

-   Recommend to reorganize the structure of Section 5. Current structure seems to show the test results independently and no descriptions to integrate the relationship for each test. Especially, it is no meaning of Section 5.4 since no description to strengthen any advantage of the contour plot to apply the practical case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General Remarks: First, it is essential to highlight that the English level needs improvement. We advise the authors to seek proofreading services.

Specific Remarks:

 

The following topics must be addressed:

Abstract:  No test results. Please, complete it. 

Introduction: Last paragraph, line 45 - this sentence looks unfinished. "Successful use of natural clays" in what? Do the authors know more examples of application in Saudi Arabia or in the world of natural clays with moderate to high plasticity apart from Defalla? Please, complete it. 

Soil Penetration Background: Eq. (1) - please explain the meaning of the variables in the equation directly below it. Line 55 - "In laboratory fall cone setup" - strange sentence, looks like some verb is missing. Please clarify it. 

Lines 60-61 - What correlations are involved? Give relevant examples. 

Paragraph lines 62-66 - no reference to the literature.

Lines 67-68 - no reference to the literature.

Lines 95-98 - no bullet points.

Materials: Sand - What does it mean "poorly graded sand"? Please, explain. The grain size distribution curves of the mixtures are missing. Please, add them. 

Line 133 - What was the compaction energy used? Please, add the necessary information to the text. 

Test Methods and Procedures:  Line 188 - Where is the Table 2? It should be just after mentioned in the test. Please, move it to the right position. 

Tables 2. The authors should necessarily explain all the symbols appearing in the table, this can be done directly below the table. 

Lines 208-211 - Again a repetition of the same text as a few lines earlier. Look at lines 193-196. 

The whole of chapter 4 should be It should be reorganized in such a way as to avoid unnecessary repetition. 

Test Results and Discussion: Line 216 - The authors already describe Figure 5, but where is the analysis of Figures 3 and 4? Something is not right here. 

Lines 224-227 - very long, convoluted sentence. Please, make it simpler. 

The captions for Figures 6 and 7 are identical, but the figures themselves are not. 

The description of Figs. 6 and 7 does not harmonize with what they depict. The authors should re-examine section 5.1. in the context of the figures attached to it. 

Can the authors provide the values of the consolidation parameters (the compression and swelling index)?

Line 276 - Change "the angle of friction" to " Friction angle". Please, check this in the whole text and make the necessary corrections. 

In the text of the article, there is no reference to Figures 8-13. This is unacceptable. In the main part of the article should describe and discuss all the figures.

Conclusions: There are no conclusions drawn from the research. There is only a summary and general statements. No specific conclusions. 

References: There are gaps. Some literature items are missing, such as under 1, 12, and 27. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The article needs major revision and you have to submit complete manuscript with proper reference and formatted (MDPI) manuscript. Define the novelty of work, increase the introduction section and literature regarding the research. Provide completed manuscript for evaluation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Continued poor English. The authors do not seem to have submitted their work for linguistic revision. 

There are still unanswered/unexplained question. Please include in the text:

1. Explanation of poorly graded sand. Not every reader of the article knows what it is about. 

2. The grain size distribution curves of the mixtures are missing. The authors' explanation that there are already too many figures is really weak. Can not be like this.

3. What energy of compaction was applied during energy compaction test? Give the correct number.

4. Paragraphs 3.3. and 3.4. information keeps repeating. Please, work more time with your article and reorganized these 2 sections. 

5. Lines 262-264 must be rewrite. Such a messed up sentence that it is difficult to understand. 

6. Ann the values of the consolidation and swelling parameters. The variability of parameters is important here. If the authors do not have the values obtained from their tests, why write about them. It is then necessary to rework the chapter 5.2.

 

•  

•  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Thank you for your constructive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please find the attached pdf file containing comments. The article is slightly ready for publication but needs some updates before final publication. The reference list is slim as well.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx