Resilient Response of Cement-Treated Coarse Post-Glacial Soil to Cyclic Load

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an experimental study on resilient modulus of cement treated soil to cyclic load. The results have good regularity, but the novelty of study appears insufficient. The manuscript should be improved and resubmitted. The following comments can be referred by the authors.

1. The present title does not reveal the highlight of the study. It can be changed to “Resilient response of cement treated coarse post-glacial soil to cyclic load”.
2. The literature review is inadequate. There are some highly related studies on the resilient modulus of cement treated base/subbase materials. Please clarify the novelty or new contribution of the present study compared with other studies.
3. In lines 123-127, the description of the aim is confusing. The authors should rewrite the sentences.
4. In Figure 2, does the gradation of tested granular soil meet the standard?
5. What is the purpose of Figure 3? What are the differences of dry soil and washed soil?
6. The variation law of optimum moisture content and maximum dry density should be discussed in detail. Because the increasing trend of W_opt with increased cement addition is found in other literatures.

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.507.353

7. The discussion on results is too simple. Mechanisms between the phenomenon and potential application of the results should be added.
8. The conclusions are too general. Please rewrite the conclusions.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I would like to thank for all the remarks on our manuscript. The paper after reorganizing and revision is more comprehensible. 

I am sending along my paper reorganized according to the Reviewers’ suggestions  ̶  new text is in red, text in new position is in blue.

Responses to individual comments are provided in the attached document.

Yours faithfully,

Katarzyna Zabielska-Adamska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors considered compacted gravelly sand in a natural state and stabilized with cement, and verified the variations of the resilient modulus values due to cement addition in different percentages.
The authors describe in detail the different phases of the experimentation and report several data describing these phases.
The work is well written, well documented and clearly reports the results of the experiment carried out.
Two typing missings are present at lines 224 and 262.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I would like to thank for all the remarks on our manuscript.

Article was language editing and minor errors were improved.

Yours faithfully,

Katarzyna Zabielska-Adamska

Reviewer 3 Report

Point 1 The abstract does not include the main conclusions of the research. I would recommend to give more comprehensive review of conclusions.

Point 2: Lime 17-18 The last sentences of the abstract should emphasise the results and practical value of the research.

Point 3: Lime 37-48. I would recommend to the authors to shorten historical review of resilience module definition, as the main aim of literature review is critical evaluation of the current focused researches.

Point 4: Literature review is significant however it doesn’t include information about researches of soil cementation not in the road construction and it’s influence on resilience module. The results could be appropriate for road construction.

Point 5: Materials and Methods. On my opinion some data regarding cement stabilization technological method should be added. The method has particular limitations and conditions which should be taken into account and included into research methodology in the form of the assumptions.

Point 6: Material description lacks information about original soil properties required for cement treatment.

Point 7: Lime 180-181. Please explain why the particular amount of the cement 1.5…..6% was taken for the test.

Point 8: Conclusion Line 305-307. Some numerical values of increasing resilience module by extended the curing time should be added.

Point 9: Conclusion Line 312-313 The evaluation declared looks quite abstract lacks figures and values.

Point 10: References Section. I would recommend add more references to the researches younger than 2017.

Point 11: Lime 378-382. I would recommend to move all the Standards references from References section to the main article body

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I would like to thank for all the remarks on our manuscript. The paper after reorganizing and revision is more comprehensible. 

I am sending along my paper reorganized according to the Reviewers’ suggestions − new text is in red, text in new position is in blue.

Responses to individual comments are provided in the attached document.

Yours faithfully,

Katarzyna Zabielska-Adamska

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The review comments have been well responded in the revised manuscript. It can be considered for publication.