Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Novelty and Originality of the study:  

In this manuscript, the subject is pertinent to environmentally friendly construction materials and aligns with recent developments in waste-based and low-carbon binding research. Good experimental work, suitable use of analytical methods, and practical engineering significance are all demonstrated in this research. However, minor adjustments to the clarity of the technique and depth of discussion are required. The combined use of calcium carbide slag and silica fume, integration of paste volume ratio (PV) and EPS shell formation, and development of predictive models are all strong points as part of the paper’s originality consideration. However, comparable research has been done earlier on lightweight soil and CLSM derived from industrial waste; the originality is primarily in the combination rather than in fundamentally innovative mechanisms.
Therefore, particularly for applications involving lightweight embankments and backfilling, the work is practically significant, and overall, it can be said that the study is moderately original.

Background:

Limited discussion about long-term durability has been done for example sulfate attack, freeze-thaw resistance, and carbonation; creepiness and shrinkage; assessment for environmental performance; comparative research and international standards are not well represented. Kindly, add more recently published global research on CLSM/LFSS durability.

Methodology:

Although the experimental design is well-organized, but important material proportions require further explanation and justification including selecting 1:1 slag-silica fume ratio, 25% sodium silicate, 20% EPS.

Results and Discussion:

The environmental benefit of the study is claimed but not quantified; for example, carbon footprint and/or life-cycle assessment are not conducted. Strength levels 1.5–2 MPa are relatively low and comparison with engineering requirements is strongly recommended. Failure modes are also not discussed. Overall, a deeper mechanistic discussion would strengthen the scientific contribution of this study.

Conclusion:

Limitations and recommendations are not acknowledged in this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Mix design and performance regulation of calcium carbide slag-silica fume-based lightweight fluid solidified soil" contains numerous inconsistencies that require clarification. The notations c_V and w_V should be used to denote volume fractions, and c_m and w_m should be used to denote mass fractions. Furthermore, the terms w/b (water / binder) should be used instead of w/c (water / cement).

General remarks

1. The authors should clearly state in the manuscript whether the w/c ratio is measured by volume or weight (Section 2.2) w/c 2.3-2.7? (Table 4).
2. In Section 2.3.3, explain how the load areas of the specimens were adjusted.
3. The authors should explain in the manuscript how much water evaporates during the curing of concrete at such an extremely high w/c ratio (line 257).
4. In Eq. 2, the symbol for the parameter c should be changed so that it no longer denotes c = cement.
5. The authors should explain in the manuscript why w and c are given in kg/m3 when w/c is a volumetric ratio? (Eq. 6).
6. The abbreviation on the UCS ordinate axis should be expanded (Fig. 3, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
7. The standard deviation (SD) of the samples should be provided in Figures 3, 6, 7, and Table 11.
8. Authors should include a glossary of abbreviations in the manuscript.

Specific remarks

9. Line 15: Explain the abbreviation EPS.
10. Line 17: Define PV (relative to what?).
11. Line 24: Explain the abbreviation EVA.
12. Line 32: Explain the abbreviations SEM and EDS here.
13. Line 95: Describe the EPS surface modification.
14. Line 168: Explain the abbreviation EVA in Table 5.
15. Line 330: Graphically format Table 4.

I recommend an in-depth review of the manuscript, including comments, to make it an article suitable for publication in the Coatings.

In its current state, this article should not be published.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared to the previous version of the article, they have made significant changes that partially address the reviewer's suggestions. However, there is an inconsistency that requires immediate correction.

Re: 4. In Eq. 2: f_c,28d should be written instead of f_28d.

The article cannot be published without correcting the above-mentioned inconsistencies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf