The Curing and Strength Properties of Highly Moist Waste Mud from Slurry Shield Tunnel Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper shows scientific interest on the curing and strength properties of waste mud, but needs some improvements as following

• in the Abstract: please explain the abbreviations when mentioned (e.g. 7d, RCSLP etc).
• in the whole text a careful check of syntax and grammar is necessary.
• The basis of the selection of the slurry shield of "Jinan Yellow river tunnel" should be explained.  
• all abbreviations should be thoroughly explained when first mentioned (e.g. RCSLP, P.O. etc)
• More explanations on the selected test method should be added throughout the whole text, such as references, correponding regulations, assumptions, loading selection, number and types of samples etc. 
• A comparison to already published articles with similar subject should provide interesting conclusions.
• All equations should be explained how they derive or relative references should be added. 
• Also, better explanations and more qualitative comments in Section 3 should be added. The purpose of Section 3 should be to highlight the significance of this work, not only describing the figures and experiments.  
• The conclusions should be reformed to give mature conclusions and emphasize on the originality of this work and future work extensions.
• The letters of the legend of Figures 5-10, 16-17 are "blurred" and small.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-1636780

Type: Article

Title: Curing and Strength Properties of Waste Mud with High Water Content of Slurry Shield

Authors: Ziyu Ding , Tao Liu * , Yan Zhang , Xiuting Su , Jianguo Zheng *

Section: Civil Engineering

Special Issue: State-of-Art of Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Engineering

General comments:

The authors have not used the MDPI template correctly: the lines are not numbered on the right-hand side of the manuscript, which makes it very difficult to locate paragraphs and make recommendations.

Specific comments:

Abstract:

-The abstract is not well organised. The authors do not clearly state the objective of this work.

-The authors mention the agent RCSLP; but what does RCSLP mean? In order to improve the understanding of all readers, it is recommended to say the full name of the agent and then put the abbreviation. Check.

-I ask the authors: only 15% cement has been used in the research? Why? Check.

-I ask again: only 7 days compression test has been done...? Check.

-The authors say: "...the 7d compressive...". Please change to "the 7 days compressive...". Check.

-The methods used in the research are not mentioned. Check.

-The last paragraph of the abstract is meaningless and does not reflect the intention of the study. Please delete it and instead the authors should add a paragraph stating in which field the results obtained could be used. Check.

Subsection 2.1.1. Please change "3,700 m" to "3.700 m". Also, there is confusion with the number 1060 m. Authors are advised to standardise the style of presentation of numbers. Check throughout the document.

Subsection 2.1.2. Please explain what P.O. means and then add the abbreviation. Check.

Table 2. The authors only give the chemical composition of cement... Why don't they also give the chemical composition of other materials? In addition, the sulphate and chloride contents and the loss on ignition are not given. Check.

Table 3. The authors have to explain why they have tested the specimens only at 7 days; in fact, it is recommended to test preferably at 28 days to obtain the so-called normal strengths. A single test age is not representative for an investigation. Please explain.

Subsection 3.1.1. The first paragraph is written in a confusing way, there is indiscriminate repetition of the same words. Please rewrite.

Subsection 3.2.2. This subsection plays no role in this work. It should be deleted. Check.

Please place Figure 11 below Figure 10. Check.

Figure 13 is too far from the paragraph where it is quoted. Please relocate it. Check.

The "Discussion" section is absent, which significantly impoverishes the interpretation of the results by the authors. It is evident that the authors have not used the template correctly.

Conclusions: the conclusions are very poor and do not reflect the content of the research.

References: the number of references used is very limited, only 16. The authors would have to duplicate this number if they were to add a "Discussion" section to the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1- The language needs to be improved and the manuscript will benefit from intensive review.  2- It is not clear the research target and what the findings are. 3- The paper is mainly studying what is called "RCSLP", however the manuscript did not bring much about the material ( source, what does RCSLP stand for, chemical components, references,  and case studies,........). A dedicated chapter shall discuss all these aspects in clear detail.  4- The research discussion shall be enhanced and to be supported and referenced. 5- Conclusion shall extend and to be supported by results not only a descriptive behaviour.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have answered adequately the questions of the reviewers.  The article can be published after the following improvements.

• In the abstract (line 14) and in the main text (lines 105-107), please give a clear explanation that "RCSLP" is a term used by the authors, or clearly explain the meaning of RCSLP, or perhaps give the words of the abbreviation RCSLP. 
• A careful check of spelling, grammar and syntax throughout the whole text is necessary due to the extensive changes in the revised version of this article.  

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. RCSLP means the curing agent is composed of resin, cement, silica, lime, and plaster. And we have checked the syntax and grammar of the whole text.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have replied to all the questions asked by the Reviewer.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors managed to review and update the manuscript according to the reviewer comments in an acceptable format. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.