Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder–Clay Mixtures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have read the manuscript “Deformation Characteristics of Rubber Waste Powder-Clay Mixtures.” This study provides valuable information for researchers interested in how geotechnical properties of soil change when modified with wastes; however, I have some comments the authors should consider before publishing their research.

- Page 4, Figure 2, consider changing the legend “posisition” by “diffraction angle (degrees)” or “2θ (degrees).”

- Page 5, Table 2, why the chemical composition of CS does not sum 100%? Change “AL2O3” by “Al2O3” and “Cao” by “CaO”

- Can the authors provide more details about the methodology used for the XRD and XRF measurements, e.g., example model of the equipment, PDFs used to determine the mineralogical composition of the soil, chemical solutions used for device calibration, detection limits of the devices, quality assurance of the measurements, etc.? It is unclear how this information affects the experiments; please, clarify it.

- Page 5, the Authors should state if the data reported in Table 2 were determined by punctual analysis or by duplicate/triplicate and indicate the corresponding standard deviation. Also, the authors should state if the experiments reported in Table 3 were performed in duplicate/triplicate and show the corresponding standard deviation bars in the corresponding Figures.

- Page 5, Line 152, “Figure 4a display waste tires and WRPs and…” change “WRPs” by “RWPs”

 - Page 11, Figure 8, change “KN/m3” by “kN/m3”

 - From Figure 9 to Figure 13, the legend “Pressure (KPa)” must be “Pressure (kPa)” since the prefix kilo in the International System of Units is in lowercase

 - Figure 10 and Figure 13, the legend “Rubber content, %” should be “Rubber content (%)” for homogeneity with the other Figures in the manuscript

 - Figures 14a and 14b, check the legends of the graphs.

- Page 18, “4. Remarkable points” section, to avoid distracting the reader’s attention, authors should consider presenting the information of this section where they discussed the corresponding results for the first time.

-  Page 19-20, “5. Conclusions” section. The authors should rewrite this section by concentrating on the significant findings revealed by their study.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. In the abstract, when RWs appears for the first time, it should not only give the abbreviation, but give the full spelling of the word.

2. As for 2.1.1 in the second paragraph, references to ASTM D422 should be given;

3. As for 2.1.1 in the third paragraph, when referring to ASTM standards, corresponding references should be given;

4. When USCS is mentioned in 2.1.2, the corresponding references should be given;

5. The ASTM standards in the Test types in Table 3 should have corresponding references;

6. ASTM D2435  in 2.2.1 should be given a corresponding reference;

7. In this paper, the unit should be formatted, such as 3 in m3 should be the superscript form;

8. As for the sample type, the design reasons and scientific rationality of adding 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 100% rubber powder should be explained;

9. The corresponding references should be given for the UCS tests in 4.1.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf