Evaluation of Aeolian Sand Collapsibility Based on Physical Indicators in the Mu Us Desert, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study was conducted to investigate the collapsibility of aeolian sand. The collapsibility was evaluated by combining water content, dry density, void ratio, and saturation with SVM. I recommend that the authors address the reviewer’s comments and resubmit their manuscript for further review.
1. Please provide a grain-size distribution curve.
2. In table 3, Why do the authors use dry density to express collapsibility? I believe that the void ratio is more appropriate for defining collapsibility because the void ratio is dimensionless.
3. The title of Section 5.2, 'Calculation of Other Indicators,' should be revised to be more specific.
4. The authors used SVM to predict parameters, which is a type of supervised learning method. It is recommended to include references that discuss the prediction of geotechnical parameters using supervised learning techniques. The following recommendations are provided:
- Yu, J. D., Park, G., Kim, D. J., & Yoon, H. K. (2024). Prediction of longitudinal wave speed in rock bolt coupled with Multilayer Neural Network (MNN) algorithm. Smart Structures and Systems, 34(1), 17.
- Aregbesola, S. O., & Byun, Y. H. (2024). Classification of geogrid reinforcement in aggregate using machine learning techniques. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 15(1), 4.
- Samadi, H., Hassanpour, J., & Rostami, J. (2024). Assessment of shear strength of fine-grained and coarse-grained soil using actual EPB-TBM operating data. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 15(1), 20.
- Samadi, H., Hassanpour, J., & Rostami, J. (2023). Prediction of earth pressure balance for EPB-TBM using machine learning algorithms. International Journal of Geo-Engineering, 14(1), 21.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript and find it generally well-constructed and thorough in addressing its objectives. I am comfortable recommending it for minor revision to improve clarity and enhance its global impact. The suggested revisions (see the attached file) are primarily focused on expanding the international scope of references and refining the presentation of certain methodological aspects. Overall, the study presents valuable insights and would benefit from these minor adjustments before publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper, entitled " Evaluation Aeolian Sand Collapsibility Based on Physical Indicators in the Mu Us Desert, China” established a method for evaluating the collapsibility of aeolian sand based on basic 21 physical indicators. Results show that the collapsibility coefficient of aeolian sand on the southern edge of the Mu Us Desert is approximately 0.001–0.05. The degree of collapsibility is slight, with a small portion showing no collapsibility. Moreover, the paper shows that there is a strong relationship between the collapsibility coefficient and physical indicators. In addition, Machine learning methods, such as the support vector machine, can effectively solve prediction and evaluation problems between variables when there is no clear mathematical relationship between multiple independent variables and a single dependent variable.
First of all, I have to thank you for your effort to do such a valuable study.
After carefully reviewing this manuscript, my recommendation is Reconsider after Major Revision for the following reasons:
1. In the entire manuscript, check the Journal submission guidelines (e.g., references and text formatting).
2. The authors must follow the Reference list and Citations Style Guide for MDPI Journals (https://mdpi-res.com/data/mdpi_references_guide_v9.pdf).
3. A brief English revision is required.
4. Identification of research gaps is a critical component of any research article. This section is not well written in its current form. Define it systematically.
5. Better define what is soil collapsible behavior. A brief review of the topic should be presented in the introduction to the article.
6. The conclusions are very summarized. I suggest expanding further.
7. Figure 1 should be modified. Improve the differentiation between silty fine sand and fine sand.
8. The authors should improve the quality (font sizes and visualization) of figures 8, 9 and 10.
9. Figure 2 shows 6 sites. The article must be presented in situ tests results from all site.
10. The software LIBSVM 3.31 should be better described.
11. Line 337 – formatting reference
12. The authors should better explain the water immersion load test. This test is similar to a plate load test performed in saturated condition.
13. The authors must be presented and discussed a load-settlement curve in saturated and natural conditions.
14. How were the moisture sensors inserted into the soil profile?
15. How did the soil wetting front be determined by the moisture sensors occur? Present and discuss this data.
16. How maximum and minimum dry density were determined?
17. In the step 5 to collapsibility evaluation, what means “relevant specifications”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been revised significantly. The reviewer’s previous comments have been addressed.
I therefore consider the article can be accepted for publication in Applied Sciences.
