Simplex Lattice Design and X-ray Diffraction for Analysis of Soil Structure: A Case of Cement-Stabilised Compacted Tills Reinforced with Steel Slag and Slaked Lime

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? – Can be improved

We have updated the Introduction section and partially rewritten many sentences. Some rewordings have been done where necessary.

2

Is the research design appropriate? – Can be improved.

The research designed has been updated significantly with many corrections in the description of the workflow (marked-up yellow).

3

Are the methods adequately described? – Must be improved.

We have improved the structure of the Methodology section with some sentences added, others rewritten or restructured (simplified or extended, where necessary in each case). The Methodology has now a more logical flow.

4

Are the results clearly presented? – Must be improved.

The results section is updated, proofread and partially modified where necessary. Some sentences are updated or rewritten, others are simplified or shortened.

5

Selecting advanced, robust, reliable and optimized methods for soil compaction and stabilization are essential for industrial purposes, as compaction and UCS are perfect indicators of soil quality, achieved through successfully performed stabilization. This paper presented a series of simplex tests used to visualize and plot the effects from stabilizing agents on clayey soil. Overall, it is an interesting study and could provide insightful results and references for similar studies in soil stabilization. The English writing is overall acceptable despite some minor issues that may need be corrected by proof-reading.

Many thanks for the encouraging comment and support of our paper. The manuscript is proofread throughout. We have corrected all the occasional typesetting misprints and minor grammar mistakes (spelling, punctuation, rewording), where necessary. Grammar errors are corrected and misprints are checked everywhere in the text.

6

The technical contents are interesting and well-described. However, the results part may need to be better elaborated. For example, how exactly does the simple lattice design work and compare to other available methods?

The Results part is elaborated with more sentences added regarding the simple lattice design. Some explanations are added about the combinations of the specific binders forming the simplex lattece design and their effects on soil stabilization in various percentage combinations.

7

How to understand, interpret, and apply the tertiary plots from Fig. 5 to Fig. 8?

The explanations on binder blend are added in the results and in the methodology sections. Specifically, each point on the ternary plot shows the mix of 3 binders which have in total 100%, that is, if one binder is lesser, the other is added more.

8

The authors are strongly recommended to make such tertiary plots color-coded contour plots, which would enhance the quality and readability of this paper extensively.

We have replotted Figures 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and made them in colour. Now previous illustrations that were in monochrome black-and-white mode are in colour, to enhance the quality and readability of this paper.

9

What are the connections between such tertiary plots and statistical equations (e.g., Eq. 13 to 15)?

The equations give the absolute amounts of binders in kg used for soil stabilization as formula. The abbreviations in equations mean the names of the binders (e.g., LS – lime + slag, CS – cement + slag). The color in ternary plots corresponds to the values of the UCS of soil specimen (from ‘green’ – the lowest, to the ‘red’ – the highest strength), achieved by the stabilization of this by binder bled in given proportions. Thus, we can analyse, which combination of these 3 binders gives the best effects on the stabilization of soil.

10

In summary, necessary details are missing and need to be provided in this part for the readers to better understand and appreciate the contents.

We have added more descriptions in the summarizing Conclusion section. Some more details are provided and the section Conclusion is updated. More sentences are added, including rewordings of the selected phrases where required.

11

The authors may also want to check if the current formatting (e.g., Tables and Figures) strictly follows the journal's requirements and standards.

Yes, we checked the formatting: we used the LaTeX style template of the MDPI. Some vertical long figures are rearranged (Fig. 3, 7 and 8) to have a more compact view. Tables are redone using standard ‘tabularx’ LaTeX package, used by MDPI template (appearance rechecked). The headers of tables are made with bold text to make them distinguishable from the content of the tables (this will be updated during the copyediting).

12

Can the visual plots of XRD results be provided as other published references did?

The explanation regarding the XRD is added. The plots are replotted in color (we updated the Figures 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

13

Please spell out the full names of abbreviations at the first place they appear, e.g., what is MCA?

We checked all the abbreviations and acronyms and included explanations in full where they appear first. The list of references is updated in the end pf the paper (section “Abbreviations”). The MCA is a Moisture Condition Apparatus (MCA). It is a device developed by the TRL in Scotland for evaluation of the MCV. We added this abbreviation in the List of Abbreviations.

Yes

Can be improved

Must be improved

Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Is the research design appropriate?

( )

(x)

( )

( )

Are the methods adequately described?

( )

( )

(x)

( )

Are the results clearly presented?

( )

( )

(x)

( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Are the methods adequately described? – Must be improved.

The Methodology section is improved with updated structure. More sentences are added, others rewritten or restructured, simplified or extended, where necessary in each case. The section has now a more logical flow. Some rewordings have been done where necessary.

2

Are the results clearly presented? – Must be improved.

The Results section is improved and updated significantly with all changes marked-up yellow. We made rewording of many sentences, added or modified some phrases, rearranged paragraphs where necessary for a better logic and readibility.

3

This article is devoted to the analysis of soils and can be useful in construction. I find this article interesting, and have a few minor comments:

1. The design of the tables does not meet the requirements of the journal and must be reworked

All the Tables (Nr. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) are reworked using the LaTeX template of the MDPI (‘tabularx’ package). Added small notations with technical descriptions below the table s where necessary (Tables 1 and 2).

4

The quality of the illustrative material is not satisfactory, especially figures 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.

The quality of the illustrations is updated. Specifically, we have redone Figures Nr. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in colour. All previous figures that were in monochrome grayscale mode are now in colour.

5

I think the authors should check if they used the correct template, since the line numbering font is different.

We used the standard LaTeX template of the MDPI. The line numbering is auxiliary polygraphic effect which will be removed.

6

In this paper, I did not find a description of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) method, information about sample preparation and hardware execution. I recommend including this and putting it in a separate section within the “Materials and methods”, as this is essential.

The section 2 Materials and Methods is updated. The information about sample preparation is added in the subsection 2.2. Sample preparation (p. 4); the information about hardware execution is added in each relevant subsection, for example, the MCA apparatus is describe din subsection. We added the subsection regarding the X-ray diffraction (XRD) in the subsection 2.3. X-ray diffraction (XRD). The process of mixing binders is described in subsection 2.4. Binders as follows: “The blends of the standardised binders were used in blending operation, which was performed in a mixing with soil, according to the SGI standards for soil composition”. The subsection 2.5. Compaction includes the description of the hardware used for compaction as follows: the surface compaction using the devices available at SGI to compact the granular material of soil. 2.6. Moisture Condition Value (MCV): Moisture Condition Apparatus (MCA). It is a device developed by 221 the TRL in Scotland for evaluation of the MCV, MCA.

Yes

Can be improved

Must be improved

Not applicable

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Is the research design appropriate?

(x)

( )

( )

( )

Are the methods adequately described?

( )

( )

(x)

( )

Are the results clearly presented?

( )

( )

(x)

( )

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

(x)

( )

( )

( )