Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Made of Recycled Construction Sludge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research presented in the article covers very interesting and important issues. Noteworthy and appreciated is the fact that the authors describe the environmental impact of the research materials used. Nevertheless, the authors did not avoid several shortcomings that would have to be corrected in order for this article to be published.

My objections relate to the following:

·         In line 104 there is a wrong statement. The authors wrote "High-flowability liquefied stabilized soil" and according to the reviewer it should be "Conventional liquefied stabilized soil"

·         In lines 140 to 148 the authors described the method of sampling and their form. However, there is no description of the sampling site (from which fragment of the material the samples were taken).

·         In table 1 and table 2, the authors presented the values of Cement-based solidifying material. However, these values are divergent, what is the reason for this?

·         Figure 7 does not have a legend describing the individual curves.

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

 

Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Recycling

Construction-Generated Sludge

 

recycling-2553281

 

Yuji Shigematsu, Shinya Inazumi, Susit Chaiprakaikeow, Supakij Nontananandh

 

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

 

Reviewer #1:

 

The research presented in the article covers very interesting and important issues. Noteworthy and appreciated is the fact that the authors describe the environmental impact of the research materials used. Nevertheless, the authors did not avoid several shortcomings that would have to be corrected in order for this article to be published.

My objections relate to the following:

 

In line 104 there is a wrong statement. The authors wrote "High-flowability liquefied stabilized soil" and according to the reviewer it should be "Conventional liquefied stabilized soil"

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #1 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors decided that no corrections were necessary, since the pointed out sections discuss comparisons with the conventional version.

 

In lines 140 to 148 the authors described the method of sampling and their form. However, there is no description of the sampling site (from which fragment of the material the samples were taken).

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #1 for kind and thoughtful comment. No sampling was done in this study, and all specimens were formulated and fabricated by the authors.

 

In table 1 and table 2, the authors presented the values of Cement-based solidifying material. However, these values are divergent, what is the reason for this?

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #1 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have corrected incorrectly stated information in Table 1 and Table 2. The authors have also added in parentheses that the cement-based solidifying material is ordinary Portland cement.

 

Figure 7 does not have a legend describing the individual curves.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #1 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors added in the text describing Figure 7.

 

 

 

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer #1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Recycling Construction-Generated Sludge

recycling-2553281

The paper presents an experimental study of high-flowability liquefied stabilized soils. The study focuses on the basic material properties of a newly developed high-flowability liquefied stabilized soil, including mechanical properties and flowability before hardening. Liquefied stabilized soils are materials that utilizes (recycles) construction-generated soil and construction-generated sludge as its base materials. These materials can thereafter be mixed with aggregates, water and cementitious materials to achieve the desired properties. Four major conclusions are drawn by the authors: (1) A higher flowability results in lower mechanical properties; (2) The high-flowability liquefied soil can be used as a backfilling, due to compressive strengths exceeding 100-330 kN/m2; (3) High-flowability soils are highly flowable; (4) High-flowability soils are better for long distance pumping.

The paper investigates a very interesting topic that is suitable for Recycling. However, there are a few concerns that the authors must resolve in order to make the paper acceptable for publishing. I will try to define my perspective and input as detailed and structured as possible.

The biggest concern is the very narrow introduction that does not really provide a sufficient base for the reader, and most points are also repeated in chapter 2. My recommendation is to widen the introduction to put your research in a bigger perspective. The introduction should be extended with more information regarding sustainability in the construction industry. Some relevant references can be found regarding sustainable materials and technologies: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100177 and the depletion of resources: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.105.054402 and specifically water: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044571 These and several other references should be introduced regarding sustainable construction and circularity.

Chapter 3 (the first one. You have two chapter 3) should be called Materials and methods and you should specify your materials more clearly in a Table. I can not really find out what materials and which proportions you used in your tests, or was it just the slurry + cement-based materials as shown in Table 1? No aggregates at all and maximum grain size of 74um for the large tests? You should also specify what cement-based materials you used. You are also mixing the units, which should be consistent throughout the paper (g/cm3 or kg/m3). It is also unclear how many tests were performed for the different properties and what results were obtained from the field test.

The Results chapter should be chapter 4. Figure 5 and Figure 6 have the same name on both axes, but I assume the y-axis should say settlement in Figure 5. Also, the x-axis should just be called Stress, since it is not a strength. Alternatively, you should display the load on the x-axis, i.e. in kN and not kN/m2. Figure 7 misses explanations for the three curves.

The conclusions may be improved, especially Conclusion #1 and #3, which are too obvious.

If these concerns are resolved, the paper may become a good contribution to Recycling.

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

 

Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Recycling

Construction-Generated Sludge

 

recycling-2553281

 

Yuji Shigematsu, Shinya Inazumi, Susit Chaiprakaikeow and Supakij Nontananandh

 

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

 

Reviewer #2:

 

The paper presents an experimental study of high-flowability liquefied stabilized soils. The study focuses on the basic material properties of a newly developed high-flowability liquefied stabilized soil, including mechanical properties and flowability before hardening. Liquefied stabilized soils are materials that utilizes (recycles) construction-generated soil and construction-generated sludge as its base materials. These materials can thereafter be mixed with aggregates, water and cementitious materials to achieve the desired properties. Four major conclusions are drawn by the authors: (1) A higher flowability results in lower mechanical properties; (2) The high-flowability liquefied soil can be used as a backfilling, due to compressive strengths exceeding 100-330 kN/m2; (3) High-flowability soils are highly flowable; (4) High-flowability soils are better for long distance pumping.

The paper investigates a very interesting topic that is suitable for Recycling. However, there are a few concerns that the authors must resolve in order to make the paper acceptable for publishing. I will try to define my perspective and input as detailed and structured as possible.

 

The biggest concern is the very narrow introduction that does not really provide a sufficient base for the reader, and most points are also repeated in chapter 2. My recommendation is to widen the introduction to put your research in a bigger perspective. The introduction should be extended with more information regarding sustainability in the construction industry. Some relevant references can be found regarding sustainable materials and technologies: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2023.100177 and the depletion of resources: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.105.054402 and specifically water: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044571 These and several other references should be introduced regarding sustainable construction and circularity.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #2 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors fully accept the suggestions of Reviewer #2 and have added the description to Section 1.

 

Chapter 3 (the first one. You have two chapter 3) should be called Materials and methods and you should specify your materials more clearly in a Table. I can not really find out what materials and which proportions you used in your tests, or was it just the slurry + cement-based materials as shown in Table 1? No aggregates at all and maximum grain size of 74um for the large tests? You should also specify what cement-based materials you used. You are also mixing the units, which should be consistent throughout the paper (g/cm3 or kg/m3). It is also unclear how many tests were performed for the different properties and what results were obtained from the field test.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #2 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have addressed almost all of the corrections made by Reviewer #2. The only point is that the details of liquefied stabilized soil and high-flowability liquefied stabilized soil have already been explained in detail in Section 2.

 

The Results chapter should be chapter 4. Figure 5 and Figure 6 have the same name on both axes, but I assume the y-axis should say settlement in Figure 5. Also, the x-axis should just be called Stress, since it is not a strength. Alternatively, you should display the load on the x-axis, i.e. in kN and not kN/m2. Figure 7 misses explanations for the three curves.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #2 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have responded to all corrections made by Reviewer #2. Additional explanation of Figure 7 is provided in the text.

 

The conclusions may be improved, especially Conclusion #1 and #3, which are too obvious.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #2 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have removed the noted conclusions.

 

 

 

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer #2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I recommend you make the following corrections:

Complete the abstract so that it highlights an overall picture of the work.

Can you complete the introduction with data on the amount of sludge generated?

The introduction must be completed with current references regarding the recycling of the generated sludge and the properties of the stabilized liquefied soil.

In line 133, please characterize figure 4, what did you notice regarding the particle size distribution of the stabilized liquefied soil with high flow capacity and the stabilized liquefied soil?

In line 286, please describe what you found regarding the results of the stabilized soil tests from table 5.

from line 363 to 419, the references should be written according to the writing instructions of the journal.

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

 

Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Recycling

Construction-Generated Sludge

 

recycling-2553281

 

Yuji Shigematsu, Shinya Inazumi, Susit Chaiprakaikeow, Supakij Nontananandh

 

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

 

Reviewer #3:

 

I recommend you make the following corrections:

 

Complete the abstract so that it highlights an overall picture of the work.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have added highlights to Abstract section.

 

Can you complete the introduction with data on the amount of sludge generated?

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have added a new Table 1 and improved Introduction section.

 

The introduction must be completed with current references regarding the recycling of the generated sludge and the properties of the stabilized liquefied soil.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have added a new Table 1 and improved Introduction section.

 

In line 133, please characterize figure 4, what did you notice regarding the particle size distribution of the stabilized liquefied soil with high flow capacity and the stabilized liquefied soil?

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have corrected the legend for Figure 4.

 

In line 286, please describe what you found regarding the results of the stabilized soil tests from table 5.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have added the information that can be confirmed from Table 5.

 

from line 363 to 419, the references should be written according to the writing instructions of the journal.

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.Dear authors,

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #3 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have formatted the references as much as possible. If corrections are still needed, the authors will be addressed in the final proofreading.

 

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer #3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my original comments and suggestions have been addressed properly.

My only advice to improve the paper is to strengthen to conclusions. As it is now, the conclusions are just a summary of the results. Each point could for example be explained in terms of their implications on the use of liquefied soils. For example, you could conclude that the high-flowability liquefied stabilized soil resulted in a compressive strength of about 500 kN which provides sufficient stability for most situations. You could also indicate that the lower strength is compensated by the superior flowability, which makes it a better choice for many complex projects.

By implementing these changes I believe the paper will be ready for publishing.

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

 

Properties of High-Flowability Liquefied Stabilized Soil Recycling

Construction-Generated Sludge

 

recycling-2553281

 

Yuji Shigematsu, Shinya Inazumi, Susit Chaiprakaikeow and Supakij Nontananandh

 

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

 

Reviewer #2:

 

My only advice to improve the paper is to strengthen to conclusions. As it is now, the conclusions are just a summary of the results. Each point could for example be explained in terms of their implications on the use of liquefied soils. For example, you could conclude that the high-flowability liquefied stabilized soil resulted in a compressive strength of about 500 kN which provides sufficient stability for most situations. You could also indicate that the lower strength is compensated by the superior flowability, which makes it a better choice for many complex projects.

By implementing these changes I believe the paper will be ready for publishing.

Authors response: The authors thank Reviewer #2 for kind and thoughtful comment. The authors have further expanded the conclusion section.

 

 

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the reviewer #2.