Mechanical Performance and Life Cycle Assessment of Soil Stabilization Solutions for Unpaved Roads from Northeast Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Life Cycle Assessment is missing in the introduction of the experimental scheme.

2.      Whether the influence of adding different content of Portland cement to the experimental group is considered, why not consider the influence of different content of hydrated lime on the experiment?

3.      In part 3.1.1 of the paper, the information given in Figure 6 is particle size and pass rate, and the information given in Table 3 is particle specific gravity and consistency limit. How did it come to the conclusion that the clay content of the primary coating increased significantly and the gravel content decreased proportionally in the samples from sections 6 and 7?

4.      For the changes of different CBR values in Figure 10, what is the conclusion of the road section higher than the "S4" part of the control group? What is the conclusion of the road section lower than the "S4" part of the control group?

5.      In section 3.3.2 of article, the information obtained from Figure 11 is that the CBR value of "section 2" is increased compared with that of the control group "section 4". The CBR value of "section 5" is the same as that of the control group "section 4". This is inconsistent with the conclusion.

6.      In section 3.5 of the article, a definition of how to determine the performance of a mixture on the side of permanent deformation is lacking. For example, as the number of cycles increases, the smaller the ε_p is better or the larger the better.

7.      A total of 10 environmental factors are given in Table 6, why only global warming is discussed in the conclusion?

8.      In the conclusion part of the paper, only a summary of each experiment is done. However, it is not clear whether the 7 experimental samples studied in this paper have achieved all the indicators, and the experimental samples that solve the road surface problem in Brazil are not clearly stated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on mechanical performance and life cycle assessment of soil stabilization solutions for unpaved roads from Northeast Brazil. I think it can be considered for possible publication in the journal after a minor revision. Some recommendations are as following:

1. The abstract summarizes the key findings, but can be more concise and structured. Suggest clearly stating the main objectives, methods, and key results separately to improve the clarity of the abstract.

2. The author should reflect the research background and purpose in the article. Please supplement it by referring to the following literature 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131527.

3. The introduction provides a background of unpaved roads in Brazil, but the explanation of the research gap is not clear enough. Adding specific problem statements and how this study addresses these issues can enhance the validity of the research.

4. A more detailed description of the experimental section can be provided, including traffic conditions, maintenance history, and typical environmental conditions in the area. This will help readers better understand the experimental background.

5. The paper can add a section discussing the limitations of the research. For example, the short length of the experimental section (700 meters) and the specific soil type tested may limit the generalizability of the results.

6. The LCA results have been presented, but the method description is not detailed enough. Suggest providing a flowchart or diagram of the system boundary and a more comprehensive explanation of the impact categories and how to interpret the results of LCA.

7. The discussion section lacks a comprehensive comparison with previous studies on soil stabilization. Adding references to similar studies and explaining the similarities and differences between the results of this study and other studies will provide readers with better background information.

8. The photos of the experimental section construction process provided can be appropriately increased in resolution or supplemented with textual descriptions of the construction process to make the image content more readable.

9. Some charts in the paper, such as particle size distribution curves and experimental section distribution graphs, can be annotated in more detail to facilitate readers' understanding of the meaning of the data and the purpose of the charts.

10. The materials and methods section can be slightly more detailed, such as adding descriptions of soil sampling methods and experimental conditions, so that others can replicate the experiment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article discusses a highly relevant topic, specifically, study of the mechanical performance and life cycle assessment of soil stabilization solutions for unpaved roads from Northeast Brazil.

This article presents the results of a study aimed at evaluating the application of various granulometric stabilization and chemical improvement techniques on an experimental segment implemented on an unpaved section of the highway in the Brazil.

The article is relevant, but in my opinion, very few changes need to be made

In my opinion, the abstract should be shortened a bit. You can delete or shorten lines 14-16; 21-23.

The results obtained by the scientists are confirmed by experimental data. But I would like to see more numerical values in the descriptions of the results (Section 3).

I would add is Abbreviations before the References. This will improve the understanding (readability) of the results presented and Sections 2 and 3.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and answer the main question posed, but conclusions should be more concise and contain more numerical results.

The references are appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf