Potential Activity of Recycled Clay Brick in Cement Stabilized Subbase
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are many grammatical errors in the manuscript. For example, in abstract (line 19-20) “The results obtained is that……. “. References should be improved. For example, in the Introduction, (line 33-34), “…. global waste production will increasing by 70% by 2050 compare to 2016”. No reference is cited to support this statement. Page 3, line 105 Scanning electron microscope is SEM instead of SED. In the specimen preparation section, the authors should clearly state their experimental conditions. For example, what is the water/cement ratio and how to determine the optimal humidity conditions etc. In the modified EDTA titration experiment section: The EDAT solution used in their experiment was 0.1 mol/ m3. Please check it. It may be too small. The author used a test strip to measure the pH in the experiment (page 9, page 224). I think they'd better use a pH meter to measure the pH of the solution. Please explain what is “intensive products” in p.9 line 239. The effect of RBA substitution on compressive strength (Fig 6) is the main focus of this paper. The authors should give a more detailed explanation. For example, they can use SEM images, IR spectra or XRD spectra to support experimental results.Author Response
Dear Reviewer，we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments to improve this paper. We have addressed all issues raised be the reviewer. The amendments made are mentioned below with reference to appropriate paragraphs and sections of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents research on the use of recycled clay brick (RBA) as aggregate in road subbase. RBA was used as fine aggregate in various replacement rates in cement stabilized mixtures. The title, abstract and keywords describe the contents of the paper to a satisfactory extent, while the literature reviewed is adequate but could be enhanced. Some more specific comments follow:
lines 40-43: Please provide information on who built the dynamic model. lines 49-52: Please provide some references for these statements. line 105: "SED" should be "SEM". Figure 1 needs correction: Since the passing rate is cumulative, it should reach 100%. Also the values for CBA IV are not cumulative as they decrease for mess size 4.75 mm. Figure 3: Are the gradations of the various aggregate gradations equal to that of the "synthetic gradation"? This seems difficult as RBA has different gradation than CBA and their rates change. It would be useful to have a depiction of the aggregate gradation for all tested aggregate combinations. Table 1 shows that 100% RBA is unsuitable for use as aggregate for subbase regarding both the plasticity index, as well as crushed stone value. What about aggregate mixes with various rates of RBA? Are the aggregate mixes suitable, i.e. do they have plasticity index and crushed stone value within the requirements? If not, they will probably not be suitable for the use also. line 167: Please make sure that C stands for graphite and not carbon. Table 3: Intensity does not seem like a valid term for strength. I advise to remove it and put (MPa) next to strength. Also, please explain where the reference values come from. lines 236-241: Please rewrite to improve expression. Table 5: The third and fourth lines should explain what the increase refers to. Figure 6 repeats the information from Table 5. In order to validate the pozzolanicity of RBA there are other test methods (e.g. ASTM C593 reaction with lime, determination of reactive SiO2) to made on the raw materials. Since the pozzolanic reaction is a slow one, the authors should consider compressive strength tests at longer ages, such as 90, 200 or 365 days.Author Response
Dear Reviewer，we would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments to improve this paper. We have addressed all issues raised be the reviewer. The amendments made are mentioned below with reference to appropriate paragraphs and sections of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have made approximate corrections based on the review comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
