Geotechnical Properties of Soil Stabilized with Blended Binders for Sustainable Road Base Applications

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

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

The Introduction section is updated with added more paragraphs and sentences regarding soil stabilization. We added and cited more references on soil stabilization and selecting binders: Consoli et al. 2019; da Rocha et al. 2021; Freitag et al. 2021; Mypati & Saride, 2022; Sargent et al., 2012; Jie et al. 2013; Holz and Batchelor, 2012; Jamnongpipatkul et al. 2009; Moh, 1962; Okagbue, 2007; Estabragh et al. 2017; Xu & Yi, 2021.

2

Are the results clearly presented? – Can be improved.

The results section is improved with many new passages added and reworded sentences; we added detailed explanation of the abbreviated binder blends and their combinations; more discussion about the results is included in the text.

3

Are the conclusions supported by the results? – Can be improved.

The Conclusion section is updated, partially rewritten and shortened, with some paragraphs moved to the Discussion section and some new sentences added.

4

Have the manuscript read by a native speaker to eliminate any typos and grammatical errors.

The manuscript is proofread throughout. We have corrected all occasional typesetting misprints and minor grammar mistakes (spelling, punctuation) where necessary. Grammar errors are corrected and misprints are checked everywhere in the text.

5

Improve the introduction section by focusing more on the soil stabilization using different polymers, etc … and how the soil stabilization would improve its suitability for geotechnical applications.

Done: we improved the Introduction and cited more works on the use of various binders applied for soil stabilization. Also added several sentences on the effects of soil stabilization on geotechnical applications with included citations.

6

The results section is rather short with the focus only on a brief presentation of the results shown in figures. This needs to be improved also in the discussion section by providing a thorough comparison analysis of the results.

The Results section is extended with added more explanations and comments on the obtained results. The Discussion section is also enlarged with some paragraphs moved from the Conclusion section which is shortened instead. We added the comparison between our results and the previously obtained work with added relevant citations.

7

The conclusion is supported by the research results. It is recommended to also show the significance of your work and its importance for the future research.

We added several sentences regarding the significance of the use of blended binders for road constructions and in general for civil engineering works. Further, we provided recommendations for future studies to continue similar experiments by including the following types of investigation: We recommend to perform the fatigue tests on stabilized material, e.g., compare with asphalt;

to examine the nonlinearity of soil material (e.g., elongation stiffness); to test the relationship between seismic, E-modulus and strength of the stabilized soil; and to improve specimen production in civil construction works.

No

Reviewer’s Comments

Author’s actions

1

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? – Can be improved.

We added several more references and cited then in the Introduction section: Meskini et al. 2021; Lima et al. 2021; Navarrete et al. 2022; Mirković et al. 2019.

2

Is the research design appropriate? – Can be improved.

The Research design is updated in the 2. Materials and Methods section. In particular, we did improvements in the subsections 2.1. Implementation of the experiment, and 2.2. General workflow. Some more sentences are included with added more explanation of the research design and workflow, minor corrections are made in the sentences, phrases and selected words where required.

3

Are the methods adequately described? – Can be improved.

The Methodology section is improved with all the corresponding subsections: 2.1. Implementation of the experiment; 2.2. General workflow; 2.3. Manufacturing soil specimens; 2.4. Soil stabilization by binders; 2.5. Seismic measurements; 2.6. Statistical analysis; 2.7. Simplex-lattice design; 2.8. Freeze-thaw attempts. Many sentences are updated, corrected and partially rewritten. The changes are coloured.

4

Are the results clearly presented? – Can be improved.

The Results section is updated with added more extended commentaries on the obtained results. Many new passages added and reworded sentences; we added detailed explanation of the abbreviated binder blends and their combinations; more discussion about the results is included in the text.

5

I have the following suggestions:

Please, improve the quality of figure 4 (left).

Figure 4 is updated with decreased number in the precision of numbers to 2 dots after comma, to improve the readability of the annotations.

6

On line 244 (when you cite “Peab”) you must add a reference

Added 3 more citations: Khadka et al. 2020; Hozatlıoğlu & Yılmaz, 2021; Andavan & Pagadala, 2020

7

On line 247 you wrote “cfr. Vct”. What is Vct? I do not find a reference in the text

A Swedish abbreviation regarding water binder number (deleted and rewritten).

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 added and cited more references on soil stabilization and selecting binders: Consoli et al. 2019; da Rocha et al. 2021; Freitag et al. 2021; Mypati & Saride, 2022; Sargent et al., 2012; Jie et al. 2013; Holz and Batchelor, 2012; Jamnongpipatkul et al. 2009; Moh, 1962; Okagbue, 2007; Estabragh et al. 2017; Xu & Yi, 2021

2

Although there are nice references in the introductory part of your work, some cites may be useful to add such as:

1. Meskini, S., Samdi, A., Ejjaouani, H., & Remmal, T. (2021). Valorization of phosphogypsum as a road material: Stabilizing effect of fly ash and lime additives on strength and durability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 323, 129161.

2. Lima, M. S. S., Hajibabaei, M., Thives, L. P., Haritonovs, V., Buttgereit, A., Queiroz, C., & Gschösser, F. (2021). Environmental potentials of asphalt mixtures fabricated with red mud and fly ash. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 22(sup1), S690-S701.

3. Navarrete, C., Guimarães, A. C. R., Marques, M. E. S., Castro, C. D., & Toulkeridis, T. (2022). Resistance to Fatigue in Asphalts Used in Military Airports of the Brazilian Amazon through the Use of Nickel-Holding Ash. Applied Sciences, 12(18), 9134.

4. Mirković, K., Tošić, N., & Mladenović, G. (2019). Effect of different types of fly ash on properties of asphalt mixtures. Advances in civil engineering, 2019, 1-11.

Besides several more of this recently fast-growing branch of materials to be used in civil engineer or road construction. Therefore, you may add a few more references of recent times.

We added all these suggested references and cited them in the Introduction section.

3

However, in the methodology (2.1) you wrote about previous experimental phases and the experiences gained from that. Certainly, as it should be you get directly to the point explaining the way you have used materials and performed your experiences. Nonetheless, in order not to repeat common errors, which you elegantly excluded, but learning from your previous failures, which have led you to the right track is not a sign of weakness rather of strength. Subsequently, if you would not mind, if you would add one or two paragraphs what should not be done in order to lead to the methodology and materials used in your study would be extremely helpful, like a certain “manual or guide” for those you will follow such or similar experimental approaches.

Yes, added a paragraph regarding the suggestions in the methodology and recommendation in future works in the Conclusion section, as a reference to continued studies. We recommend to perform the fatigue tests on stabilized material, e.g., compare with asphalt;

to examine the nonlinearity of soil material (e.g., elongation stiffness); to test the relationship between seismic, E-modulus and strength of the stabilized soil; and to improve specimen production in civil construction works. We moved this paragraph to the Conclusion for a logical links with future studies.

4.

In 2.2 it would be useful to describe complete sentences and explain parts of them rather to list (twice) the different steps following Montgomery´s (1997) work.

The section 2.2. is rewritten and updated with reformulated sentences reworded some phrases and added more explanations.

5.

In equations 3 and 4, not all terms have been explained.

Corrected and added description as follows: “where β is the coefficient of regression; ε is the residual error; x₁ is the value of binders which indicate factors; y is the dependent variable.”

6.

The freeze-thaw experiments (2.8) went down to -25 degrees, but if I´m not mistaken, temperatures can drop even further down in Sweden in winter? So, there is a limit of usage here of such materials as proposed?

The materials are collected from the southern Sweden with relevant temperature variations in the outdoor air. Thus, the soil was tested to be resistant to freeze-thaw cycles under given temperatures and cracking under defined environmental setting.

7.

The data determined (better: calculated) in figure 4 are unrealistically exact, 2 max 3 dots behind the comma should be enough. Fig 5, 6 and are spectacular nice result presentations (and patterns).

Figure 4 is updated with reduced precision of numbers up to 2 dots after comma, as suggested.

8

The discussion needs also additional comparisons with other studies, meaning several more references should be included.

Discussion section is updated with added comparison with similar previous studies, as suggested. Compared with previous studies and added citations for Rezaeimalek et al. 2018; Horpibulsuk et al. 2012; Pedarla, 2010; Latifi et al. 2018; Rogers et al. 2006; Andersson et al. 2001. We also rephrased several sentences and replaced some paragraphs moved from the Conclusion to Discussion.

9

In the conclusions section, once again such parts should be expressed in complete sentences and not as listings. The conclusions should be also the conclusive part of the study rather to summarize and repeat different parts of the procedure / manuscript. Therefore, I may recommend to shorten great part of it and the rest to leave it in the section of the discussion.

The Conclusion section is shortened. The following paragraphs are moved to Discussion:

1) “The highest strengths in soil specimens were achieved <...>”.

2) “The categorization was done based <...>”.

The Discussion section is now larger and more extended compared to the Conclusion, which is made short and concise.

10.

English grammar is just fine, however, vocabulary may be a little richer; e.g. instead of repeating “showing” words could be used such as demonstrated, indicated, illustrated, determined, yielded etc. This gives are nicer flow through the reading. Summarizing, it’s a great study with excellent and very useful results.

The English grammar is checked again and the manuscript is proofread throughout. We have corrected all occasional typesetting misprints and minor grammar mistakes (spelling, punctuation) where necessary. Grammar errors are corrected and misprints are checked everywhere in the text.