Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

The manuscript is well-structured and presents interesting research aimed at optimizing the use of pocket penetrometer results, thereby improving its efficiency.
However, some significant gaps need to be addressed. An adequate reference to previous studies in the literature regarding the use of the pocket penetrometer is not presented. This omission makes it challenging to interpret certain sentences — for example, “Compared with the traditional method, the method has improved the sample preparation efficiency to a certain degree” (lines 90-91).

The description of the research methodology must also be expanded, as Table 2 alone is insufficient. Specifically:

-        Provide details of the laboratory and field test programs, including a more detailed rationale.

-        State the number of specimens tested for each test/soil type and field conditions (currently implied only in an image).

-        Clarify how the results from the field and laboratory tests, presented under different water contents in Table 2, were correlated; this is presently unclear.

Please ensure that the numbering of references cited throughout the text follows a sequential order, as per the journal's formatting guidelines.

The soil has a Liquid Limit and a Plasticity Limit; the difference between them is the Plasticity Index. Terms such as Plasticity Limit Index or Liquid Limit Index are incorrect and should be replaced with appropriate terminology. Please review this usage throughout the text, generally referring to Liquid Limit and Plasticity Limit values.

Equations are all unnumbered, particularly in Chapter 3, which are embedded within sentences. This placement disrupts readability. Consider numbering the equations and presenting them clearly, with a discussion following each. Similarly, correlation coefficient results should not appear mid-text; use a table to summarize these values and discuss their significance within the text.

Section-specific feedback

Section 3.2: In geotechnics, outliers cannot be dismissed without careful consideration, as they may hold significant information. Please review the discussion in lines 174-176 accordingly.

Chapter 4: Revise the conclusion to highlight key findings, particularly the observed differences in water content. For example, remolded soil samples show minimal variation in water content, whereas field test sites exhibit significant variation for the lab samples (as shown in Table 2).

Additional comments

Lines 20 and 22: Replace “reshaped/remodeled” with “remolded,” which is the appropriate term in geotechnics.

Line 28: Replace “straight shear test” with “direct shear test” and “cross plate shear test” with “plate shear test.”

Lines 37-40: Use “pocket penetrometer” consistently; avoid “Pocket Pin Spotter” or similar.

Table 2: Verify the column headers and consider replacing text with symbols where appropriate.

Lines 77-78: Revise “improvements were made to improve” for clarity (e.g., “modifications were made to enhance”).

Figures 3-6: Update the Y-axis title to "Depth" and correct the X-axis title in Figure 7 to "Depth" also.

Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c: Add distinguishing elements in their captions to clarify differences.

Lines 106-107 and others: Ensure there is a space between the last digit of a number and its unit throughout the text (e.g., “10 cm” instead of “10cm”).

Lines 123-124: Revise to improve clarity: “The influence of inhomogeneous soil conditions on the test results can be eliminated.”

Figure 8: Correct and refine the caption for accuracy and consistency.

Lines 103, 212, 225: The term “fluidity index” is mentioned in these lines but is absent in the results discussion (Chapter 3). Ensure that its role is addressed and consistently explained.

 

Thank you for your attention to these details. We look forward to seeing the revised manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments were presented in the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-written and well-presented but some improvements are required (please see attached).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Optimization and Experimental Study of Penetration Depth of Pocket Penetrometer" analyses the penetration test results of various reshaped soils showed that the relationships between liquidity index, shear strength, and penetration resistance were less affected by the liquid-plastic interface. In addition, the penetration test results of remodeled soils and in-situ soils show that the empirical formulas are still informative in evaluating the shear strength of soils despite the differences in the test soils.

 

- The paper can be published after some corrections.

- The paper appears to be written in an excessively essential manner. Initially, it would be appropriate to include the methodologies used and the results obtained proposed within the articles cited in the Introduction. Insert a historical description of the evolution that has affected the use of the pocket penetrometer. Describe the technical and interpretation changes that have allowed to reduce the errors of evaluation during the execution of the tests.

- Please insert some photos and a drawing describing the pocket penetrometer.

- Please include some photos and a drawing of the equipment needed to prepare the sample.

- Page 1, Introduction: “13” is better “(1-3)”; “46” is better “(4-6)”; “79” is better “(7-9)”.

- Page 1, Introduction: “10-15” is better “(10-15)”; “16-34” is better “(16-34)”

- Table 1: Insert Moisture Content and Liquidity Index.

- Table 1: Are the Limit values ​​always the same regardless of the Moisture Content value?

- Page 3: “The test results of specimen uniformity test show …” is better “The results of specimen uniformity test show …”.

- Figure 8: Is Humoral Index the Liquidity Index?

- Page 6: Give a definition of "P".

- Figure 11: In the Fitting Equation the term w is the Moisture Content?

- Figure 11: Where are the Empirical Equations of End Resistance and Shear Strength of red clay?

- It would be appropriate to better formulate the comparison between the results obtained on site and what was obtained in the laboratory by referring to the considerations and figures reported in the paper previously.

- Pages 8, 9: What is the Fluidity Index?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please have my cooments below

-not clear and not detailed, and no analysis in depth for " the 15

self-designed penetrometer, sample preparation method, and data analysis method"

-test astm ?!!

-various soil type needed

-comparison with previous models and new one

-the new developed one, how did you develop it ? details, etc

-table1, mechanical properties???!

-fig7/8/9/11, rmse for fitting curve and how did you select the fitting curve?

-fig10, not clear

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

check needed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been updated according to the reviewers' request.

However, some small typing mistakes must be reviewed, as follows:

Lines 28/29 - "Traditional shear strength testing methods, such as triaxial test (13), direct shear test (46), and plate shear test (79), while..."

Lines 65/68 - "consists of three functional areas as shown in Fig. 1. The driving function area consists of synchronous belt ①, stepper motor ②, ... (please, rearrange the others)...."

Line 71 -  ". The monitoring function area (3)  is a computer program, ..."

Lines 112/116 - Use "line ①" instead of "① line"; please repeat for all the others.

Line 124 - Please replace one "show";

Line 151/152 - ". The other is a natural in-situ soil ... cm/s; the undrained shear..."

Line 170 - please remove "The influence of ".

Line 228 - "...obtained. All four equations..."

Lines 250/266 - systematically "Red Clay" not "red clay".

Lines 259/260 - "...mainly due to the soil's structure and the alteration of its physical properties."

Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into consideration the indications proposed by the reviewers, therefore the paper can be published.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your professional and detailed review of our manuscript. Your feedback is incredibly valuable and has greatly helped us improve the quality of our research.

We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions. Your insights have made our work more rigorous and reliable.

We sincerely appreciate your dedication and support, and we hope to benefit from your expertise in future endeavors as well.

Wishing you good health and success in your research!

 

Best regards,

Yanzhao Liang, Guilin University Of Technology

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors addressed my comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your professional and detailed review of our manuscript. Your feedback is incredibly valuable and has greatly helped us improve the quality of our research.

We have carefully considered each of your comments and made the necessary revisions. Your insights have made our work more rigorous and reliable.

We sincerely appreciate your dedication and support, and we hope to benefit from your expertise in future endeavors as well.

Wishing you good health and success in your research!

 

Best regards,

Yanzhao Liang, Guilin University Of Technology