Collapsible Gypseous Soil Stabilization by Calcium Carbide Residue and Sulfonic Acid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1)Table 2: Why did you analyze carbon rather than carbon dioxide, when Bernard's calcimeter is more commonly used?
2)Table 2: Are nutrients such as N and P absent in these soils?
3)Table 3: How did you analyze the pH? Please specify the standard used.
4)Table 3: How can you explain this acidity of the soil, when it has a certain basicity?
5)Table 4: To be redone. How did you analyze pure oxygen (10.96)?
6)Standardize the colors and font of the figures.
7)Figures 26 to 34: Linearity cannot be tested with only 3 points. Add more points.
8)Table 7: You used one digit after the decimal point for Normal stress, but seven digits after the decimal point for the Shear stress analysis. Standardize your results.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The introduction is unclear: It should be noted that it is somewhat irrelevant to the topic of this study. Literature review: This section covers a wide range of topics, but tends to describe how others have improved gypsum soil to increase its strength, seemingly ignoring the advantages and disadvantages of using sulfonic acid and carbide slag polymer treatment materials to solve the problem of gypsum soil collapse and comparing them with traditional methods, as this is the focus of the work.
2. The size of the figures is not uniform: For example, the alignment of Figures 7 and 8 is different; and the title format of the figure axes is not uniform. For example, in Figures 11 and 12, the annotation of porosity is either bold or not bold, and only some of them are annotated.
3. Some abbreviations in the article are not explained in advance. It is recommended to mark them with brackets when they first appear, or explain their specific meaning each time they appear. For example, the specific meaning of gyp and FA in the introduction is not explained.
4. Discussion section can be made More telling: A section can be inserted to discuss the impact of this study. Who benefits from it? What problems can this study help solve? What is the next step? This suggestion could clarify. Does the processing of the soil aggregate better as water saturation increases?
5. Research methods are not adequately described: The research methods are an important part of the work but are not adequately described. I suggest that the materials section should describe what instruments were used to prepare the samples and what tests were performed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language1. Diversity of sentence structure: Try to use different sentence structures to improve the readability of the article.
2. Language style: Keep academic writing formal and objective, and avoid overly colloquial expressions.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Please describe the curves shown in Figs.5-10, in Lines 241-253, and also please do not use the curve fitting lines among the experimental data. please explain why there are two void ratios under the same effective vertical stress?
Especially, for Fig.9, the results seem very peculiar, please refer to the existing studies for comparison.
2. Please do nou just put many figures together, for example,Figures 11 to 22, try to reanalyze, and reunify them to support your conclusion.
3.In Fig.24, negative CP value is found , please explain the reason. Is it true or rational? also please delete the curve fitting lines, justg put your calculated data.
4.In Table 7, how do the authors reach the conclusion'' for soil 20, the enough addition ratio of polymer is 7.5%', just because the maximum efficiency poercentage? what about 5% or 3%, please show your criterion ? how can you determine the increased shear strength be adequate? please give your reason.
5. The manuscript must be carefully proofreading to prevent typo errors. for example, Line 149,150, 45 and 110 are subscripts.
kpa in Figures 26 to 34should be kPa like those in Figures 5-22.
soil 20 or soil(20), such different indicators must be unified.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has used a treatment material that utilizes Sulfonic acid and Calcium carbide residue geopolymer to solve the collapse potential problems of gypseous soil. The whole paper is well written and provides guiding value for engineering practice. However, this article also has some problems, and the specific comments are listed below:
1. The abstract should provide a more concise overview of the methodology and findings. Currently, it includes excessive technical details such as percentages and mixing proportions, which might be more appropriate in the methods section.
2. The introduction lacks a critical discussion on the environmental implications of using geopolymer additive compared to conventional methods.
3. There are too many paragraphs in the introduction and the logic is confused. The main ideas in each paragraph are unclear. The paragraphs should be merged and simplified for clarity.
4. In lines 210-215, the serial numbers of the figures and tables are incorrectly marked. There are many detail issues in the manuscript. The author should carefully revise the manuscript.
5. The images in Figure 3 and Figure 4 are not clear enough, which confuse readers when reading the image descriptions. It is recommended to use a clearer image.
6. In lines 232-234, “The soil and geopolymer were manually mixed for a duration of five to ten minutes to achieve a sufficiently uniform mixture. Subsequently, the prepared specimens underwent an hour-long fermentation process.” Which standard did you use to determine the mixing and fermentation times? What is the purpose of fermentation?
7. There are many figures of the oedometer test results, so only representative ones should be included in the main body. If all images must be retained, they can be presented as an appendix.
8. Please double check all the language errors throughout the manuscript before publication.
9. In Section 4.3, the direct shear test results should only display the stress-displacement curve, as the fitting diagram between normal stress and shear strength is used only to derive shear strength parameters, without further analysis. Additionally, this fitting method is widely known, so its inclusion is unnecessary and removal is suggested.
10. The conclusion does not highlight the innovation of this study, and it is suggested to further improve it.
11. Some articles in the reference list lack volume numbers or page numbers. Please check and modify it carefully.
12. The references cited in the current article is relatively outdated. The following references are suggested to be added to reflect the timeliness and depth of the paper:
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101770
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106895
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsit's a good work
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 481-484，the sentences require further paraphrased.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be accepted as it is.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
