A Thermodynamic Constitutive Model for Saturated Sand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1 Introduction
Authors indicated some key futures as below;
Gradual materials
Soil particle packing friction
Fluid pore pressure
External frequency loading
Mean effective stress on effective stress theory for fully saturated soils
However, this study performance to NOT combine friction parameters of soils in discussions or consideration.
1 Introduction Page 1 8 line from bottom
Author said “lack of zero effective stress” in granular material properties. Reviewer NOT has agreement this sentence. In literatures, there are significant many papers related to zero effective stress, that is NOT enough to investigation of reference.
Page 1 from 2 line bottom
and post liquefaction. Please insert one space between “and” and “liquefaction”
This paper progressive using TTS established by Tsinghua research group. It is good. However, what is new portion or authors what improvement ?
Is correspond to models to clay applied to saturated sands?
This paper applied to Toyora sand NOLY. For making stable of applying of suggested model, it should compare another gradual sand.
In modified TTS model, dissipating process was improved. Other hands, untrained condition triaxial test was conducted out under untrained condition as no volume strain. Are there dissipating ?
In modified TTS model, critical state is key feature to indicate accurate data sets. Please make clear in definition to critical state.
2.5. Loading process
Below sentence,
the critical state and the volumetric elastic strain level of the initial state are directly determined by the material density and the initial consolidation conditions,
Untrained triaxial compression test could not occurred strain. Is it necessary to improve elastic strain during compression or progressive of mean effective stress ?
Page 6. Line 1
Compression-shear coupling effort ?
Page 6 line 4 from bottom
Meaneffectivestress. Please revise mean effective stress
Table 1
It is available to assume any parameters in modelling. Other hands, source reason is important to accept from reader. Then, K and G were constant, respectively. Please mention source reason or add accurate references.
Table 1
Evaluation of liquefaction or past liquefaction deformation for sand generally require obtaining relative density value according to each void ratio.
Figure 1 to 3
Modified TTS had advantage to critical stats that was understood from stress-strain curves in Figs 1 to 3. However, reviewer found out some afraid points, which large difference between measurement results and simulation data sets close to small strain in stress-strain behavior such as elastic strain raging.
Please explain to be cause.
Figure 4
Relationship between void ratio and mean effective stress. These data sets could be draw in straight line or smoothly line with curve.
Also, please make relationship between relative density and mean effective stress as modified ideas.
Page 8
Line 2 from top
Authors mentioned below;
and the shear stress in the simulation results is consistent with the experimental result.
However, due to considering results Figs 1 to 3, this sentence is NOT accurate.
3.3 Loading process loading
Comparison between simulation and measurements were indicated at stress ranges from 3000 kPa and 2000 kPa. Authors distinct “low stress level”. Why this experimental work choice further high stress level such as 3000 kPa.
Conclusion
Loading/unloading criteria as one of constitutive model factors was focused. However, loading/unloading process were NOT explained in experimental works. Also, did authors introduce and explained effect of loading/unloading process in stress history.
Conclusion
Term “friction angle in critical state” was referred in conclusions. Reviewer could not find out evaluated number or measured value regard to friction angle from triaxial test.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper addresses two interesting topics in soil mechanics - namely the
prediction of critical state without an elasto-plastic framework and the
prediction of phase transitions in the low effective stress regime. The
investigation assumes incompressible solid and fluid phases, effectively
focusing on the changes in the skeleton of the sample itself.
This paper approaches this complex topic from the viewpoint of non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. Specifically, it implements a simple version of the Tsinghua
Thermodynamics Soil Model (TTS) and establishes the need for a mitigation coefficient
to counter the effect of elastic relaxation. The paper asserts that a coupling
energy mechanism is essential in granular materials. Further elaboration would
improve readability.
If the reader is not familiar with the TTS model, the mention of non-equilibrium
thermodynamics may be disruptive. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a broad and
evolving field and the paper uses this term loosely. A specific definition of
which aspect of this field is relevant would improve the paper. Referring to
near equilibrium and conventional state variable methodology would also improve
the paper.
The paper discards the thermodynamic models in the literature without identifying
the authors' rationale for ignoring them. A paragraph comparing the dis/advantages
of the two approaches in a discussion section before the conclusions would speak to
this oversight.
The introduction uses the term coupling loosely. There are many forms of coupling in
thermodynamics. The precise meaning only becomes clear once the text refers to the
viscosity relation. Adding an adjective in the introduction would improve readability.
The introduction discards the elastic model, but eq 14 is a linear elastic model.
Eq 14 does not account for variations in density as is necessary in soil mechanics.
Some comment on both these points would help.
Although the paper mentions interlocking, which covers the intermediate range
between zero effective pressure and critical state pressure, the paper does
not elaborate on this interlocking. It could be improved with a reference to
Taylor (cited in ref 19) and Schofield (2006) and a section discussing this
topic. The paper mentions the increase in friction angle, which is relevant
here.
The phase transition point is not clearly defined if compared to the conventional
understanding of critical state. Is a critical state a phase transition point?
A mental model or physical description of the coupling mitigation coefficient for
the uninitiated would help.
Several references listed in the paper are not cited in the body. If not cited,
they should not be included in the body.
With more work along these lines, this paper would reach a broader audience.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Revised sentences are satisfied.
Reviewer 2 Report
Your changes have made your paper more transparent technically to an outside reader. Some minor editing by an English expert would improve the flow of your paper. You may wish to pass this draft to someone within your institution.