Research of the Behavior of Clay Materials with Double Porosity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) This paper presents very interesting research results on the behaviour of embankment soil and its susceptibility to static liquefaction.
2) Line 24
What the authors understands by the term “…recent years…”. References [1-4], were publish in 1990, 2002 and 2007. In my opinion there is more new literature in this area.
3) Line 36-37
“The preconsolidation stress and the strength parameters were good and they showed some potential for static liquefaction.”
This sentence contradicts itself.
4) Line 49
Why is figure 2 referred to before figure 1
5) Consideration could be given to rewording Chapter 2. In such a way as to first describe the material and then the sample preparation and test method.6) In my opinion, an experimental verification of the proposed solution for the consolidation of unsaturated soil could perhaps be considered.
6) Line 126
The caption of the drawing is probably wrong (Figure 3. Result of unconsolidated undrained test). The text before Figure 2 refers to the CU(consolidated, undrained) method.
7) There is no result of oedometric tests in the paper, why?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Hello,
I repair 1 until 8 comment.
Best regards
H. Lahuta
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- The Introduction part is too short and not very informative. The authors should correct that and add some references.
- The results are not presented in a clear way. Figs1-3 and Tables 1-4 are presented before the Results part, are these your results or not? it is not clear. Please correct that. Your Results should be presented and Referred in the Results part.
- Figure 4 seems to be of low quality (I am referring to image quality not to the scientific one). For example, the letters are blur. The authors should correct that
- The English should be improved in some parts e.g. last bullet of Conclusions Part.
- The References are not enough and there is an absence of recent ones. The authors should correct that.
Author Response
Hello,
thank you for your comments. I tried to repair lack.
Best regard
H. Lahuta
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the manuscript can now be accepted.
