Macro- and Micro-Behavior of Suffusion Under Cyclic Hydraulic Loading: Transparent Soil Experiments and DEM Simulation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper conducts in-depth research on transparent soil experiments and DEM simulations to investigate the effects of cyclic hydraulic loading on internal erosion behavior, but several deficiencies still exist, as detailed below:
1.Inadequate representativeness of experimental samples: The paper only selects three specific soil gradations (Stable, Unstable-A, Unstable-B) and investigates only two fine particle contents (15% and 20%).
2.Fixed number and amplitude of cycles: The experiment uses only 10 cycles and a fixed amplitude (Δi=0.2), without exploring the effects of different numbers of cycles or amplitudes on erosion behavior, which limits the universality of the results.
3.Lack of quantitative analysis of force chain evolution: Although the paper mentions the evolution of force chain structures, it lacks in-depth analysis of quantitative indicators such as force chain network strength and directionality, making it difficult to fully reveal the micro-mechanical mechanisms.
4.Local effects of fine particle migration: While the MCTS method can analyze changes in fine particle content, it does not sufficiently discuss the impact of fine particle migration in local areas (such as pore channels) on overall stability.
5.Validation of DEM simulations: Although transparent soil experiments are used to validate DEM simulations, the criteria for consistency between simulation results and experimental data (such as error ranges) are not clearly stated.
6.Insufficient detail in experimental parameters: Some experimental parameters (such as laser plane thickness and specific parameters of the image processing algorithm) are not described in sufficient detail, which may affect the reproducibility of the results.
7.Fluid-particle interaction model: The Di Felice drag force model used in the paper is common, but its applicability to non-spherical particles or high-concentration suspensions is not discussed, which may introduce errors in certain cases.
8.Terminology and figure numbering consistency: Some terms need standardization (e.g., defining "suffusion" with the Chinese translation "suffusion" when first introduced), and figure numbers need to match their citations in the main text (e.g., the citation position of Figure 6).
9.Figure 6 (seepage velocity-hydraulic gradient curve): The labels for monotonic loading and cyclic loading curves are easily confusing (e.g., "Monotonic loading (stepwise)" vs. "Monotonic loading (linear)"), requiring optimized legend differentiation.
10.Inconsistencies between figure numbers and citations: Cross-check the citation order throughout the text for figures mentioned (e.g., Figures 12 and 14 in the document).
11.Significant fluctuations in fine particle content across layers in Figure 12: For example, a sudden drop from 3.1% to 2.75% in L5 at 12000 s is not explained, leaving uncertainty about whether it reflects measurement errors or actual scouring.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear colleagues, I have studied your paper
I think its topic is useful and I find the paper beneficial
I still have a few suggestions for improvement.:
the abstract should emphasize new results and procedures, this is certainly not the first paper on the movement of fine particles...
The introduction is fine, it appropriately describes the reasons for the research and the transition to DEM simulations.
Figure 1 would be useful to enlarge, especially part "a".
The results are described clearly and concisely, the pictures are easy to read.
What I really miss is a discussion of the results!
After completion, the paper can be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “Macro and micro behavior of suffusion under cyclic hydraulic loading: transparent soil experiments and DEM simulation” (authors: Bo Huang, Xin Zhao, Chang Guo and Linfeng Cao) has been reviewed.
There are some suggestions and comments:
- The photo quality given in Fig. 1 b should be better.
- It would be interesting to see the photo of the permeameter used in the experimental research.
- What does “water tank” mean (row 142)? Was the water used in the experiments?
- The discussion section would be very useful.
- Uncertainties in the research conditions, areas for improvement, and vision for further research should be discussed in the discussion section.
- I suggest presenting the conclusions more concisely.
- The authors should discuss the practical application of the results in the conclusions or discussion section.
Conclusion
The results are interesting, and I think that this paper may be published in the journal after minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI agree with changes
