Research on the mechanical properties of EPS lightweight soil mixed with slag

Lifang Mei; Dali Xiang; Yiwen Huang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297372

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 24, 2023
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Abdullah Ekinci, Editor PONE-D-23-31063Research on Mechanical Properties of Slag EPS Mixed Lightweight SoilPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xiang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Abdullah Ekinci, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: * English needs to be improved * EPS definition need to be given in abstract * particle size and their % need to be given in abstract Rewrite paragraph on line 36 Rewrite section 2.1 to be more understandable * line 141. unlimited increase? what do you mean? * Table 3 scheme need to be capital letter and why 20% curing agent is decided to be worked on? * it may be better to have 3D- with 2 y axes to see effect of agent and EPS graphs on results * line 258. cut line? rewrite the sentence * line 303 physic mechanical? * line 310 why those % values are chosen for SEM * in conclusion part, after giving results, conclusion need to be given to understand why this study has been conducted Reviewer #2: 1-Language and Terminology needs rigorous improvement. Some of the sentences appear to be unclear or ambiguous. The language used must be precise and that technical terms must be appropriately defined and explained. A formal proof read is necessary for the whole manuscript. Some of the ambiguous parts are highlighted but the rest also need checking. A format check is also strongly advised. 2-The novelty and the research question of the work is unclear. Why and where do we need light soil and in which structures it could be applied? What is the application? What is the contribution of the research and its novelty in the field of geotechnical engineering. What specific gap does this study fill, and how does it advance the current understanding of the subject? 3- The methodology needs improvement. Which standards are used? How the EPS is prepared? What are the properties of EPS? What type of clay is used? 4- The clay here seems to CL (?), it is not clear why it needed the improvement at the first place. 5- The addition of EPS seems to decrease the strength of samples, how the usage of EPS is justified then? 6- There isn't a comparison with the original soil with no additive, it's likely that the soil with no admixture would exhibit better properties. A comparison with the plain soil must be added. 7- what is it meant by curing agent? Slag and cement are most commonly used as binding agents. 8-EPS could may cause deformation and settlement within time and loading, how the authors justify the usage of it? 9- Is there any environmental effects of using EPS? slag within the soil? It most be considered. ******** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-31063.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297372.r001
Revision 1
1 Dec 2023 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Research on Mechanical Properties of Slag EPS Mixed Lightweight Soil"(ID: PONE-D-23-31063). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments and have made revision carefully. Revised portions are marked in red. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published. Thank you very much for all your help. Please find the following Response to the comments of reviewers: Reviewer #1: * English needs to be improved Response: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have carefully checked the spelling, language, grammar, and punctuation, corrected some errors, and polished the whole manuscript. We hope our manuscript can meet the journal’s standard. * EPS definition need to be given in abstract Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. we have added the EPS definition. “Expanded polystyrene (EPS)” has been given in abstract. * particle size and their % need to be given in abstract Response: Thanks so much for your suggestion. we have added the information about particle size and their % in abstract. The particle sizes of EPS beads are 1~3mm，the EPS content are 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, the slag-cement composite binding agent are 10%, 15%, 20% and 25%, respectively. on line 14-16. Rewrite paragraph on line 36 Response: Thanks so much for your comment. We have re-written paragraph on line 36, and this section is much better. Rewrite section 2.1 to be more understandable Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. We have re-written section 2.1, and this section is more understandable. * line 141. unlimited increase? what do you mean? Response: Thanks so much for your comment. With the increase of EPS beads, the density of lightweight soil will decrease, too much EPS is difficult to make a specimen, the strength of lightweight soil will also decrease, The EPS content cannot be unlimited increased, a suitable ratio is needed to meet the needs of the project. * Table 3 scheme need to be capital letter and why 20% curing agent is decided to be worked on? Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. We have modified the letter in Table 3, the word "curing agent" has been replaced with "binding agent". the 20 % binding agent is a typical representative. * it may be better to have 3D- with 2 y axes to see effect of agent and EPS graphs on results Response: Thanks so much for your suggestion. based on your suggestion, we have added 3D- with 2 y axes to see effect of agent and EPS graphs, this section is more specific and clearer. on line 236 * line 258. cut line? rewrite the sentence Response: Thanks so much for your comment. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, the "cut line" means Secant, we have corrected the words. * line 303 physic mechanical? Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. English expression error, replace " physic mechanical " with " physical and mechanical properties ". * line 310 why those % values are chosen for SEM Response: Thanks so much for your comment. In microscopic test, the main observation is the state of EPS, its % value does not affect its state, a representative % value can be chosen, 20% binding agent is a suitable % value for microscopic test. * in conclusion part, after giving results, conclusion need to be given to understand why this study has been conducted Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. The significance and value of conducting this study is given after the conclusion. on line 388-390. Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some revisions in the manuscript. We hope you can accept our revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1-Language and Terminology needs rigorous improvement. Some of the sentences appear to be unclear or ambiguous. The language used must be precise and that technical terms must be appropriately defined and explained. A formal proof read is necessary for the whole manuscript. Some of the ambiguous parts are highlighted but the rest also need checking. A format check is also strongly advised. Response: Thanks for your kind reminder. We have carefully checked the spelling, language, grammar, and punctuation, corrected some errors, and polished the whole manuscript. Technical terms are given appropriate definitions and explanations. We hope our manuscript can meet the journal’s standard. 2-The novelty and the research question of the work is unclear. Why and where do we need light soil and in which structures it could be applied? What is the application? What is the contribution of the research and its novelty in the field of geotechnical engineering. What specific gap does this study fill, and how does it advance the current understanding of the subject? Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. on line 84-93, I have modified and supplemented the above formulation. Lightweight soil is widely used as a new lightweight fill material due to its light weight and high strength. Previous studies focus on the behavior of various soils mixed with EPS beads and cement. Slag is a common building material used in engineering and construction, mixing slag in EPS lightweight soil can reduce the amount of cement, lower filling costs, and improve the strength of lightweight soil, achieving economic and environmental protection. Currently there is a lack of research on EPS lightweight soil mixed with slag, the slag will be developed into a high value-added filling materials to achieve large-scale utilization of slag, accelerate the transformation and upgrading of waste utilization, and produce a new type of lightweight filling material. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out research on the mechanical properties of EPS lightweight soil mixed with slag. 3- The methodology needs improvement. Which standards are used? How the EPS is prepared? What are the properties of EPS? What type of clay is used? Response: Thanks so much for your comment. on line 105, 107-108, 135-136, 147-149, I have modified and supplemented the above formulation and other relevant places. The standard is " Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T-50123-2019)". The lightweight materials are EPS spherical beads, produced by Plastic Foam Factory, diameter 1~3mm, pure particle density of 0.024g/cm3, and packing density of 0.016g/cm3, with light weight, seismic, low cost, etc. EPS added to the soil body can significantly reduce the soil body's own load, to achieve the role of reducing soil pressure and load. The original soil used in the test is silty clay. 4- The clay here seems to CL (?), it is not clear why it needed the improvement at the first place. Response: Thanks so much for your comment. The original soil in this case is silty clay. The subject of our research is lightweight soil, a new type of artificial fill material. on line 37-38, 40-41, 45-51, I have modified and supplemented the above formulation and other relevant places. With the increase of EPS beads, the density of lightweight soil is greatly reduced, generally up to 1.2g/cm3 or less. The mixing of binding agent makes the lightweight soil have certain strength and deformation resistance. In order to improve the applicability of lightweight soil, to facilitate the use of local materials, to reduce transportation and construction costs, the waste soil excavated from the pit of the nearby construction site was selected as the original soil, mixed with EPS beads and binding agent, and made into EPS lightweight soil. Due to its light weight and high strength, it plays a vital role in weak foundations, preventing highway settlement, stabilizing slopes, backfilling bridge abutments and underground cavities. 5- The addition of EPS seems to decrease the strength of samples, how the usage of EPS is justified then? Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. EPS has the advantages of light weight, seismic, low cost, etc., Adding EPS can reduce soil density, soil pressure, and settlement. Although the strength is reduced, adding binders can compensate for the loss of strength, the strength of lightweight soil can be adjusted according to engineering needs. The use of EPS is reasonable. 6- There isn't a comparison with the original soil with no additive, it's likely that the soil with no admixture would exhibit better properties. A comparison with the plain soil must be added. Response: Thanks so much for your suggestion. based on your suggestion, we have added Fig. 2 about the original soil with no additive on line 181. 7- what is it meant by curing agent? Slag and cement are most commonly used as binding agents. Response: Thanks so much for your comment. English expression error, replace " curing agent " with " binding agents ". 8-EPS could may cause deformation and settlement within time and loading, how the authors justify the usage of it? Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. Researches have conducted relevant research on EPS lightweight soil, shown that the addition of EPS to soil can reduce soil's density and weight, but the addition of binders, EPS lightweight soil has a certain strength and deformation resistance. Due to EPS lightweight characteristics, it reduces soil load and pressure, instead reduces deformation and settlement. 9- Is there any environmental effects of using EPS? slag within the soil? It most be considered. Response: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments. In 34-35, 68-72, I have modified and supplemented the above formulation and other relevant places. EPS molecular structure is stable, does not release harmful substances and cause chemical reactions to the soil. Researches analyzed the composition and properties of slag, and studied the application of slag in the fields of building materials, sewage treatment, agriculture and resource utilization. The results show that making full use of the secondary resources of slag can improve the protection of the environment, realize the harmless treatment of slag, and further improve the residual value of slag. Thank you again for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some revisions in the manuscript. We hope you can accept our revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297372.r002
4 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Abdullah Ekinci, Editor Research on the Mechanical Properties of EPS Lightweight Soil Mixed with Slag PONE-D-23-31063R1 Dear Dr. Xiang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Abdullah Ekinci, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297372.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Jan 2024 Acceptance Letter - Abdullah Ekinci, Editor PONE-D-23-31063R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xiang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah Ekinci Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297372.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .