Optimization of Compaction Quality Control in the Core of Random Fillings within Linear Infrastructures: Application to Metamorphic Slate Fillings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The font size in Figure 1 and Figure 5 needs to be corrected.
2. It is necessary to increase the visibility of the graphs of Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9.
3. Authors need to correct the units of pressure in the manuscript. Unconfined Compressive Strength is a unit of pressure, expressed in kPa or kN/cm2. Please correct it. Line 190 of the text is indicated in MPa.
4. It is necessary to plot Table 3 with Geological Cross-sections graph to make it easier for readers to understand.
5. In Table 2, it is also necessary to indicate USGS. In Figure 1, it is necessary to indicate the index of USGS for each random filling part.
6. The manuscript as a whole is difficult for readers to understand easily. It is recommended that authors consider changing the overall structure of the paper.
   Since this paper presents the Compaction Quality Control method, it is necessary to present the current standards and procedures for this method in Chapter 2. And it is necessary to increase the understanding of readers by dividing each chapter into sub-chapters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The strong advantage of the manuscript is used quite an extensive database and that's about it. The authors are supposed to present new compaction quality control method, but in fact, there is non, or it's simply hidden somewhere between the words. The novelty needs to be exposed. For now, it is simply a statistical comparison of the available earthworks control test. The authors do not even mention the factors affecting potential errors in the results. The critical review is also missing, wheel track test is not considered a reliable compaction control test, it gives an idea of how effective is the process but the results are rough I'm afraid. It is also highly recommended to update the literature review and refer to the most recent studies and methods (especially in the foist part of the introduction, nothing is mentioned on high text solutions like sensors attached to compactors). Last but not least is the style. The entire text needs substantial revision (starting with the title!). These are just the major comments, more specific remarks are: l. 16 this is not clear what layer? geotechnical layer or subsurface or surface. maximum 800mm is not much for road or railway embankments. Do you mean a single constructed layer? please be more precise in the abstract.

l. 22 standard compaction quality control is not complicated at all, so why simplifying it? this need to be addressed in the abstract... the purpose of the study. 

l.27 ref [1] . how relevant is the ref. It's published 18 years ago, how does it refer to EC7 requirements.

.l. 40 Instead of Proctor, for large size a vibration table method, is recommended. Why such lab method it is not included in analyses?

Tab 1 needs more attention (please refer to a marked copy of the manuscript

l. 154 The review is quite extensive but there is no information on how it differs from the method that the authors are proposing. Please expose the advatages of new test. 

Tab. 2 what is d and H? These are not common symbols to express density or moisture content!

Figures are too small, and not properly described (please refer to copy attached)

Concerns all tables in the results section. I would recommend collecting all these results and presented them in one common table. This would give a better picture of what is happening among all the tests.

l. 413 Refers to a conclusion part. Such conclusions based on statistical analyses are way too simple. The compaction is affected by a number of factors that need to be considered first. Please review

For all specific comments please refer to attached copy of the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your manuscript, please find following comments:

Lines 27-28: do you might indicate some more details about the procedure, like title or on what it is based?

Table 1. please organize it a bit more for a better overview. Add references, standards

Line 51 rephrase …in the new method to define a new method….doesnt sound

Lines 51-154: please structure more your provided info. Last paragraph reserve for your novelty paper outcome.

Lines 156-159: excavation where? Please provide a detailed info on your experimental program. Table 2. Identify what means each of your Refs ?

Figure 1 enlarge it, barely can be seen

Indicate in your conclusions clearly the novelty of your study and if that was not suggested elsewhere.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am deeply grateful to the authors for clarifying the content and structure of the paper. In particular, I would like to thank for presenting a summary of compaction quality control in Table 1.

In Figure 4, the text on the scale is not visible. Please adjust the size.

Figure 5 is not visible. Please correct the error.

In Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, what is the meaning of the comma in the number of Settlement? is it a decimal point? Correction is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented in the article is of practical importance in geotechnical engineering. The authors significantly improved and completed the manuscript. It is also advisable to improve the purpose of the research and its practical implematation in other conditions as well as extend discussion in relation to the current research presented in the literature. No significant errors were found in the current version of the article. The article can be published with minor corrections. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf