PONE-D-24-34216

Mechanical properties of discarded shield residue improved by calcium carbide slag and fly ash as subgrade filling

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ding,

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.

==============================

This manuscript has been reviewed by expert referees on this subject and it has been concluded that the draft article proposes an innovative idea for recycling Engineering waste and has certain research value, but it should be further improved, especially the effects of replacing QL with CCS or increasing FA on its properties. It has been concluded that it should be revised and resubmitted in line with the comments and suggestions of the referees below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 06 2024 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,

Ugur Ulusoy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This study is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China

 (Grant No. 52378330 and Grant No. 51978159).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[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: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: PONE-D-24-34216:

Comments and Suggestions

This manuscript aims to enhance the shield residue with IBPs (i.e. CCS and FA) and utilize it for subgrade filling during the construction of Jihua Road, in order to achieve resource utilization and cost savings. The study presents several techniques to investigate the properties of the samples; the results were also explained and discussed. However, the quality of the manuscript should be further enhanced, particularly the effects of QL substitution by CCS or increasing FA on their properties. The clarifying and potential points are as follows:

Major comments:

Affiliation

- The superscript of affliliation for all authors should be corrected.

Introduction

1) In litterature reviews with CCR and FA for stabilization soil, plese consider the related recently publications such as :

- Environmentally friendly binders from calcium carbide residue and silica fume and feasibility for soft clay stabilization, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03117

- Evaluation of calcium carbide residue and fly ash as sustainable binders for environmentally friendly loess soil stabilization, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51326-x,

- Enhancing durability of concrete mixtures with supplementary cementitious materials: A study on organic acid corrosion and physical abrasion in pig farm environments. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02731

- Acidic corrosion-abrasion resistance of concrete containing fly ash and silica fume for use as concrete floors in pig farm, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214509522001425?via%3Dihub

Materials and methods

2) In XRD patterns, the scale of intensity (Y axis) should be provided and also it should be disscus on the level of crystallity or amprphous phases for all raw materials.

3) There appears to be an inconsistency in using CCS in this study, as the specimen's abbreviation is CCR3FA.

4) Please provide the reason or evidence to support the appropriated experimental misproportions.

Results and discussion

5) Please make sure to thoroughly review and correct the data presented in Table 4. Additionally, kindly provide an explanation and analysis of the results depicted in the table, which indicate variations in moisture content due to the effects of QL substituted by CCS or increasing FA.

6) Please cafully check and correct the data in table 4. Also, please explian and discuss the results in this table which is observed that the moiture content is varied based on the effects of of QL substituted by CCS or increasing of FA.

7) In the CBR test, the results of all specimens should be presented, and the effect of QL substituted by CCS or increasing FA should be discussed.

8) In the UCS test, “After 28 days, the strength growth of the QL-FA stabilized soil slowed down, while that of the CCS-FA stabilized soil continued to progress at a fast pace.” Please explain the reasons for or provide results to support the mechanisms of CCS-FA stabilized soil.

9) Please provide and further discuss the significant results obtained from equation 1, table 5, and Fig. 6.

10) In the moisture content and pH test, please explain the reason to support that those values of CCR are larger than QL specimens.

11) In the water stability test, “This phenomenon could own to the finer particle size and larger specific surface area of CCS, which could lead to a denser microstructure of the stabilized soil.” Please provide the supported results, such as particle size and morphology of QL, CCS, and FA as investigated by SEM measurement.

12) In the Dry-wet cycle test, please explain why the QL3FA4 and CCR3FA4 specimens were selected for testing over other appropriate specimens.

13) In the Dry-wet cycle test, Please provide the results of all specimens in the Dry-wet cycle test and discuss the effects of QL substitution by CCS or increasing FA on this test while enhancing shield residue.

14) In the Dry-wet cycle test, “In comparison with the CCS-FA stabilized soil, the UCS of QL-FA stabilized soil decreased significantly, which is consistent with the apparent state, mass loss, and height changes of the specimens. Hence, it can be concluded that the durability of CCS-FA stabilized soil is superior to QL-FA stabilized soil”. Please provide the results of all speciements and carfully dissussion on the effects of QL substitution by CCS or increasing FA.

15) In the Dry-wet cycle test, “In general, the improvement is mainly due to the finer particle size and larger specific surface area of CCS. The CCS plays a good filling role and makes a denser microstructure of the stabilized soil, leading to greater erosion resistance and chemical stability” I The results of this study have not been supported; please provide the particle size and morphology of QL, CCS, and FA as investigated by SEM measurement.

Conclusions

1) Please summarize the impact of QL substitution by CCS or increasing FA on this study.

2) What are the future studies and proposed applications of shield residual based on their properties?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript comprehensively analyzes the improvement of mechanical properties of shield residue by calcium carbide slag and fly ash, and obtains some reliable results. An innovative idea of recycling engineering waste is proposed, which has certain research value, but there are still some deficiencies. The comments and suggestions are as follows.

1. Sec. 3.3, there is a lack of strength and other mechanical parameters of shield muck samples, it is recommended to be supplemented.

2. Sec.3.3, the reaction trends of QL-FA and CCR-FA are not the same, please explain further.

3. Sec.3.1, line 117, please explain why the higher the content of FA, the smaller the particle size, or give the specific steps for making samples with different proportions?

4. Only the results of 3 % CCS and 3 %, 4 %, 6 % FA content are analyzed, are they representative?

5. In section of Conclusion, It is suggested to explain the limitations of the research, as well as the prospect and improvement direction of the research.

**********

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: Comments for PONE-D-24-34216.pdf

Mechanical properties of discarded shield residue improved by calcium carbide slag and fly ash as subgrade filling

PONE-D-24-34216R1

Dear Dr. Ding,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Ugur Ulusoy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Following the completion of our expert reviewers' evaluation, it was decided to manuscript the article as it is, since it was seen that the Authors addressed the problems that emerged in the first review and made corrections in the study.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: The authors have considered all recommended requests & addressed the various precisions both scientifically & technically.

Reviewer #2: The paper has been improved with revisions and the authors have addressed the concerns raised in the initial review.

**********

7. 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

**********