Improvement of Structural Parameters of Loess and Its Relationship with Strength Indicators
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract should be more concise and better summarized.
The introduction ought to be expanded in order to clearly present the existing research gap.
More comparisons of the results with those in the previous literature are needed.
Please explicitly highlight what is innovative about the results.
The validation of the outcomes needs further detailed explanation.
The conclusion should be strengthened and made more substantive.
English improvement is needed.
Author Response
Review 1
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, Professor. Your viewpoints have been of great help to the quality of my manuscript and my academic level. The following is my reply regarding the revision of the manuscript.
Comments 1. The introduction ought to be expanded in order to clearly present the existing research gap.
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten.
Comments 2. More comparisons of the results with those in the previous literature are needed.
Response 2: The introduction has been rewritten and improved to better describe the shortcomings of previous studies and the significance and purpose of this research.
Comments 3. Please explicitly highlight what is innovative about the results.
Response 3: The innovative points of the research results of this article have been supplemented and described in detail.
Comments 4. The validation of the outcomes needs further detailed explanation.
Response 4: The reply provides a detailed explanation of the verification of the results in the text.
Comments 5. The conclusion should be strengthened and made more substantive.
Response 5: The conclusion section has been rewritten to address the above issues.
Comments 6. English improvement is needed.
Response 6: The English writing of the article has been polished and improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor Authors
Based on a review of the provided manuscript titled " Improvement of structural parameters of loess and its relationship with strength indicators " here are my comments and recommendations for each section:
Overall Comments:
- The similarity rate is very high (28%). I recommend reducing it to less than 20%.
- Make that the references and figure/table captions are formatted consistently throughout the document.
- It is advised to check for typographical or grammatical faults in order to improve professionalism.
Abstract
Although the abstract offers a thorough summary of the study, there are some unclear passages. (i) A more precise formulation of the study problem from the outset would be advantageous. (ii) To improve readability, complicated sentences should be simplified. (iii) The main conclusions and their ramifications should be stated clearly.
Introduction
Although the significance of soil structure is contextualized in the introduction, it may be improved by: (i) Clearly stating the precise research gap that the study attempts to fill.
(ii) To back up the assertions regarding the current status of research, a more thorough literature study should be provided. (iii) A succinct explanation of the study's goals should be included.
Methodology
Although the methodology section is well-organized, it is lacking in several important details. (i) For example, the experiments' descriptions have to include information on sample sizes and the statistical techniques employed for analysis. (ii) It is essential to provide clarification on the precise circumstances under which tests were carried out as well as the methods used to measure the structural parameters. (iii) To illustrate the experimental design graphically, think about incorporating a flowchart.
Results
Although the results are given clearly, (i) there is room for improvement in the way some tables and figures are incorporated into the narrative. (ii) Make sure the story makes reference to and discusses every visual component. (iii) To emphasize the importance of the main findings before going into discussion, think about summarizing them at the end of this section.
Discussion
Although the results are well interpreted in the discussion section, it might be strengthened by: (i) Clearly connecting the findings to the introduction's research questions. (ii) To put the results in context, comparisons with previous research are included. (iii) Talking about the study's possible shortcomings and how they might affect the results.
Conclusion
The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings but should: (i) Emphasize the practical implications of the research findings for engineering applications. (ii) Suggest directions for future research more explicitly..
References
- Review the reference list for completeness and accuracy. Ensure that all cited studies are relevant and recent.
- Authors should be added few recent references in introduction, data, methods and discussions.
- Change the format of references according to the requirement of the journal.
- References cited in the text must appear in the list of references.
- You will find some new related references, which should be added to the literature review.
- Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for the references should be added.
- Some References are cited in the body but their bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Review 2
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, Professor. Your viewpoints have been of great help to the quality of my manuscript and my academic level. The following is my reply regarding the revision of the manuscript.
Comments 1.
Overall Comments:
The similarity rate is very high (28%). I recommend reducing it to less than 20%.
Make that the references and figure/table captions are formatted consistently throughout the document.
It is advised to check for typographical or grammatical faults in order to improve professionalism.
Response 1.
The manuscript has been revised and the similarity rate has been reduced to below 20%.
The format of all references and the titles of figures and tables is consistent throughout the manuscript.
The layout and grammatical errors have been checked and corrected.
Comments 2.
Abstract
Although the abstract offers a thorough summary of the study, there are some unclear passages.
(i) A more precise formulation of the study problem from the outset would be advantageous. (ii) To improve readability, complicated sentences should be simplified.
(iii) The main conclusions and their ramifications should be stated clearly.
Response 2.
The abstract has been rewritten to more clearly state the research question, conclusion and its implications. Complex sentences have been simplified to improve readability.
Comments 3.
Introduction
Although the significance of soil structure is contextualized in the introduction, it may be improved by:
(i) Clearly stating the precise research gap that the study attempts to fill.
(ii) To back up the assertions regarding the current status of research, a more thorough literature study should be provided.
(iii) A succinct explanation of the study's goals should be included.
Response 3.
The introduction has been rewritten, providing a detailed and precise description of the purpose and significance of this study. Some necessary references have also been added
Comments 4.
Methodology
Although the methodology section is well-organized, it is lacking in several important details.
(i) For example, the experiments' descriptions have to include information on sample sizes and the statistical techniques employed for analysis.
(ii) It is essential to provide clarification on the precise circumstances under which tests were carried out as well as the methods used to measure the structural parameters.
(iii) To illustrate the experimental design graphically, think about incorporating a flowchart.
Response 4.
Supplementary explanations were provided regarding the test plan, test samples, structural parameters, and the determination of strength indices.
Comments 5.
Results
Although the results are given clearly, (i) there is room for improvement in the way some tables and figures are incorporated into the narrative. (ii) Make sure the story makes reference to and discusses every visual component. (iii) To emphasize the importance of the main findings before going into discussion, think about summarizing them at the end of this section.
Response 5.
The analysis and description of the experimental results have been improved, emphasizing the significance and research value of the structural parameters proposed in this paper.
Comments 6.
Discussion
Although the results are well interpreted in the discussion section, it might be strengthened by: (i) Clearly connecting the findings to the introduction's research questions. (ii) To put the results in context, comparisons with previous research are included. (iii) Talking about the study's possible shortcomings and how they might affect the results.
Response 6.
The discussion section has been rewritten to ensure that the research findings are linked to the questions raised in the introduction. A detailed comparison has been made between the research results and the achievements of previous studies, and the shortcomings have been corrected.
Comments 7.
Conclusion
The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings but should: (i) Emphasize the practical implications of the research findings for engineering applications. (ii) Suggest directions for future research more explicitly.
Response 7.
The conclusion part of the manuscript has been supplemented and corrected, with the addition of content on the application of the research results to engineering and future research directions.
Comments 8.
References
Review the reference list for completeness and accuracy. Ensure that all cited studies are relevant and recent.
Authors should be added few recent references in introduction, data, methods and discussions.
Change the format of references according to the requirement of the journal.
References cited in the text must appear in the list of references.
You will find some new related references, which should be added to the literature review.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for the references should be added.
Some References are cited in the body but their bibliographic information is missing. Kindly provide its bibliographic information in the list.
Response 8.
The completeness and accuracy of the references have been checked. All the cited studies are relevant and up-to-date.
Some recent references have been added to the introduction, data analysis and discussion of results.
The reference format has been corrected in accordance with the requirements of the journal.
All the literature mentioned in the text (including new references) has been listed in the references.
The DOI of the references has been added.
All the references cited in the text are listed in the References.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLines 5-6-7-8. You should add the author's affiliation.
Lines 9 to 14. Summarize.
Improve your Keywords
Line 35. Are soil structure and Soil Fabric synonymous? Please define soil structure.
Lines 39 to 43. Please, rewrite to make it clearer.
Line 44 This reference is not correctly cited. “(10)QI Ji-lin, XIE Ding-yi, SHI Yu-cheng. (2001). Research methods and current status of soil structure. Northwestern Seismological 534 Journal, 23(1), 99-103”
Line 47 Explain better the “structural parameter”.
Line 50 to 51 “Since then, many scholars have carried out related research.” Please cite this authors.
Your paragraphs are too long. Please divide them.
Line 74.”Shao Sheng-jun.” This reference is missed.
Your introduction is unclear; please revise it. The paragraphs are too long. You should add a more straightforward definition of the parameter and international references.
Line 189- Is “light compaction” equal to standard proctor energy? Please clarify.
Tables 1 and 2. Please add the dry density and moisture content of each sample. Are these parameters in function of total stress?
Triaxial tests are usually done in saturated samples. How did you do your triaxial test in unsaturated samples?
Line 214 to 217: Explain better how this parameter can be constant if it changes depending on the used equipment.
Lines 230-231: Explain how loess can have “with strong structural Properties”.
Line 293-297: Are you considering total stress?
Line 302-304 Please rewrite.
Lines 320-323: Are these “Weinan loess from Shaanxi” the same soil presented in Lines 188-191? Why are the properties different?
Line 322: What is the condition for dry density is 1.26g/cm3? Compacted? Natural?
Line 328: Please add more detail on how you performed triaxial tests on samples with different moisture content. What was the B value of these tests? Which was the stress path adopted?
Table 6. Please add the moisture content of each sample.
Table 7: Please add the dry density of the samples.
Line 191:Did you do a statistical test to prove “sense regularity in a statistical sense”?
Table 10. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 8? Please explain why they are not identical.
Table 11. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 9? Please explain why they are not identical.
Line 460-465. It should be interesting to use literature results to demonstrate that your methodology is effective. Please add this comparison.
Line 486-490 I disagree because you did not present results from complex stress states.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The text should be improved, especially the introduction.
Author Response
Review 3
Thank you, Reviewer, for your detailed and professional comments and suggestions. Your feedback has been of great help to the quality of my manuscript and my academic research attitude. Below is my response to the revisions of the manuscript.
Comments 1. Lines 5-6-7-8. You should add the author's affiliation.
Response 1. The author's affiliation has been added.
Comments 2. Lines 9 to 14. Summarize. Improve your Keywords
Response 2. The summary and keywords have been improved.
Comments 3. Line 35. Are soil structure and Soil Fabric synonymous? Please define soil structure.
Response 3. The definition of soil structure has been elaborated in detail in the text.
Comments 4. Lines 39 to 43. Please, rewrite to make it clearer.
Response 4.
Comments 5. Line 44 This reference is not correctly cited. “(10)QI Ji-lin, XIE Ding-yi, SHI Yu-cheng. (2001). Research methods and current status of soil structure. Northwestern Seismological 534 Journal, 23(1), 99-103”
Response 5. This part has been rewritten.
Comments 6. Line 47 Explain better the “structural parameter”.
Response 6. This part has been supplemented with an explanation of the "structural parameters".
Comments 7. Line 50 to 51 “Since then, many scholars have carried out related research.” Please cite this authors.
Response 7. The author has made the citation, and the reference has been added.
Comments 8. Your paragraphs are too long. Please divide them.
Response 8. Long paragraphs have been rewritten and described in separate sections.
Comments 9. Line 74.”Shao Sheng-jun.” This reference is missed.
Comments 10. Your introduction is unclear; please revise it. The paragraphs are too long. You should add a more straightforward definition of the parameter and international references.
Response 9 and 10. The literature citations have been detailedly marked, the paragraph structure has been corrected, and the parameter definitions have also been supplemented.
Comments 11. Line 189-“light compaction” equal to standard proctor energy? Please clarify.
Response 11. The original text was unclear in this part. Now this part has been rewritten and the problem has been clearly described in the text.
Comments 12. Tables 1 and 2. Please add the dry density and moisture content of each sample. Are these parameters in function of total stress?
Response 12. The physical properties of the soil samples have been supplemented in the text, and detailed explanations and descriptions of these parameters have also been provided.
Comments 13. Triaxial tests are usually done in saturated samples. How did you do your triaxial test in unsaturated samples?
Response 13. Triaxial tests on soil are an important part of geotechnical tests, mainly used to determine the strength and deformation characteristics of soil. According to the national standard GB/T 50123-2019, the preparation of triaxial test samples is based on the dry density, moisture content and sample size required by the test to obtain the soil samples needed for the test. The samples can have various moisture contents, not just saturated moisture content. The following is a diagram of the triaxial test process. The soil samples are tightly wrapped in rubber membranes and will not be affected by the moisture content due to the addition of water to the instrument.
Comments 14. Line 214 to 217: Explain better how this parameter can be constant if it changes depending on the used equipment.
Response 14. This issue has been explained and additional descriptions have been added in the text.
Comments 15. Lines 230-231: Explain how loess can have “with strong structural Properties”.
Response 15. The original description was inaccurate. It should not be described as having a "strong structural nature", but rather as having an "obvious structural nature". This paragraph has been rewritten.
Comments 16. Line 293-297: Are you considering total stress?
Response 16. and are the major and minor principal stresses of the specimen at the time of failure in the triaxial test. The specific details have been supplemented in the text.
Comments 17. Line 302-304 Please rewrite.
Response 17. This paragraph has been rewritten.
Comments 18. Lines 320-323: Are these “Weinan loess from Shaanxi” the same soil presented in Lines 188-191? Why are the properties different?
Response 18. There was an error in the previous manuscript of this part, which has been corrected. All the soil samples in this article are the same, all being loess from Weinan, Shaanxi.
Comments 19. Line 322: What is the condition for dry density is 1.26g/cm3? Compacted? Natural?
Response 19. The natural dry density of the undisturbed soil sample is 1.26 g/cm³.
Comments 20. Line 328: Please add more detail on how you performed triaxial tests on samples with different moisture content. What was the B value of these tests? Which was the stress path adopted?
Response 20. The content of Section 3.2 has been updated, and the test plans for different confining pressures, moisture contents, and dry densities have been completed respectively.
Comments 21. Table 6. Please add the moisture content of each sample.
Response 21. The moisture content of the soil samples is indicated in the first column of Table 4-1.
Comments 22. Table 7: Please add the dry density of the samples.
Response 22. The dry density of the soil samples is indicated in the first column of Table 4-2.
Comments 23. Line 191:Did you do a statistical test to prove “sense regularity in a statistical sense”?
Response 23. This part of the content has been revised and rewritten.
Comments 24. Table 10. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 8? Please explain why they are not identical.
Comments 25. Table 11. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 9? Please explain why they are not identical.
Response 24 and 25. Equations (13) and (14) in the text reflect the functional relationship between the structural parameter ratio and the essential properties of loess (water content and dry density). Therefore, the structural parameter ratio can be used as an important parameter to study the relationship between the two. Based on the strength index (c, φ) values of the soil samples obtained from the experiments, the relationship between the structural parameter ratio and the strength index ratio (c, φ) (experimental values) is obtained (Equations 15 to 18). Therefore, we first use the water content and dry density to obtain the ratio of the structural parameters through Equations (13) and (14); then, substitute the obtained structural parameter ratio into Equations (15) to (18) to obtain the ratio of the strength indices (c, φ) (calculated values). Finally, compare the experimental values with the calculated values to prove that the difference between the two is not significant, further demonstrating that the relationship between the structural parameters and the strength indices (c, φ) is feasible and reasonable.
The ratio of the strength indicators in Table 8 (now Table 4-3) and Table 9 (now Table 4-4) in the original text is the value obtained through experiments, while the ratio of the strength indicators in Table 10 (now Table 4-5) and Table 11 (now Table 4-6) is the value calculated based on a functional relationship. One is an experimental value and the other is a calculated value.
Comments 26. Line 460-465. It should be interesting to use literature results to demonstrate that your methodology is effective. Please add this comparison.
Response 26. The references here have been added (42-44).
Comments 27. Line 486-490 I disagree because you did not present results from complex stress states.
Response 27. The original content of this paragraph was unclear, so items 1.2 of the conclusion have been rewritten.
Comments on the Quality of English Language. The text should be improved, especially the introduction.
Response The language description of this article has been improved and polished to enhance the quality of the English.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI wish success to the authors in their study.
With Best Regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We will continue to work hard and conduct research on this topic (the study of soil structure).
Best Regards,
Xiao-juan WU
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTo make the reviewer's life easier, please report all alterations in the text in the reviewer's answers document (Copy and paste the alteration).
Please add the standards used for the direct triaxial test and direct shear test.
The conclusion number (1) should be merged with the conclusion introduction, because it is not a conclusion of your research, but rather a knowledge gap.
The conclusion number (7) should not be numbered. It is not a conclusion. It should be a normal final paragraph that points out the perspective for the future in this research.
Author Response
Review 3- round 2
Thank you for your professional and precise comments. Below is my response to the revision suggestions.
Comments 1. To make the reviewer's life easier, please report all alterations in the text in the reviewer's answers document (Copy and paste the alteration).
Response 1: All the modifications in one round of review are replied as follows.
(1) Lines 5-6-7-8. You should add the author's affiliation.
Original text: 1 Affiliation 1; e-mail@e-mail.com
2 Affiliation 2; e-mail@e-mail.com
* Correspondence: e-mail@e-mail.com; Tel.: (optional; include country code; if there are multiple corresponding authors, add author initials)
Modified text: 1 Affiliation 1: Xi'an University of technology, Xi'an City,710048, Shaanxi Province
* Correspondence: Xiao-juan WU; email: 1190711004@stu.xaut.edu.cn
(2) Lines 9 to 14. Summarize. Improve your Keywords.
Original text: On the basis of existing research results, this article improves the structural parameters of loess and demonstrates the close relationship between the complex stress state structural parameters of loess and soil strength parameters, and verifies their functional relationship. The research results demonstrate that structural parameters, similar to density and moisture content, are parameters that can reflect the essential characteristics of soil, and therefore have certain research significance.
Modified text: Building upon existing research, this study refines the structural degree index of loess and derives the structural evolution parameters and structural modification parameters. Based on this foundation, the concept of complex stress state structural parameters for loess is proposed, and their correlation with soil strength indices is systematically investigated. The results demonstrate that the complex stress state structural parameters effectively capture the variation patterns of soil structure and, similar to conventional physical indices such as density and moisture content, reflect the intrinsic properties of soil. Furthermore, by establishing the relationship between complex stress state structural parameters and strength indices, key mechanical properties can be directly predicted from basic soil parameters such as moisture content and dry density. This confirms the scientific validity and practical applicability of the proposed parameters.
(3) Line 35. Are soil structure and Soil Fabric synonymous? Please define soil structure.
Original text: With the gradual deepening of research, scholars are paying more and more attention to the study of soil structure, and many scholars have elevated it to the core position of soil mechanics.
Modified text: (An explanation of soil structure was added in the revised version.) Generally, the soil structure is defined as the connection characteristics between particles and the arrangement of particles, which includes all the different features between the soil and its corresponding remolded soil [1-3]. In terms of mechanical properties, the structural properties of soil are reflected in its ability to maintain its original structural state without being destroyed. Its essence is the loss of the bonding force between particles in the soil under the impact of external factors, resulting in adjustments to the spatial arrangement of structural units, and changes in pore morphology, size, quantity, and distribution [4,5]
(4) Lines 39 to 43. Please, rewrite to make it clearer.
Original text: The greatest advantage of the soil mechanics method is that it avoids the direct determination of the two factors that make up the soil structure, and directly establishes the relationship between structure and engineering properties through the soil mechanics method.
Modified text: The primary advantage of soil mechanics research methods lies in their ability to directly establish the relationship between soil structure and its engineering properties.
(5) Line 44 This reference is not correctly cited. “(10)QI Ji-lin, XIE Ding-yi, SHI Yu-cheng. (2001). Research methods and current status of soil structure. Northwestern Seismological 534 Journal, 23(1), 99-103”
Original text: Ding-yi XIE and Ji-lin QI [10], based on the method of soil mechanics research, first combined the arrangement characteristics and connection characteristics of soil particles, and proposed a standard for determining the structural strength of soil.
Reference 10. QI Ji-lin, XIE Ding-yi, SHI Yu-cheng. (2001). Research methods and current status of soil structure. Northwestern Seismological Journal, 23(1), 99-103.
Modified text: Based on lateral compression tests conducted on undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil, Xie et al. [18-20] proposed the comprehensive structural potential .
Reference 18. Xie D Y, Qi J L. Soil structure characteristics and new approach in research on its quantitative parameter. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1999,21(6), 651-656. DOI: 10.1088/0256-307X/16/9/020.
Reference 19. Xie D Y, Qi J L, Zhu Y. Soil structure parameter and its relations to deformation and strength. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,1999, (10):1-6. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0559-9350.1999.10.001.
Reference 20. Xie D Y, Qi J L, Zhang Z. A Constitutive Laws Considering Soil Structural Properties. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2000,33(4), 35-41. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-131X.2000.04.008.
(6) Line 47 Explain better the “structural parameter”.
Original text: They proposed a structural parameter that is concise, reliable, practical and can fully reflect the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the soil.
Modified text: Based on lateral compression tests conducted on undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil, Xie et al. [18-20] proposed the comprehensive structural potential . The structural parameters (comprehensive structural potential) established through soil mechanics methods comprehensively consider the effects of loading and moisture content on loess structural behavior, thereby pioneering a new approach to soil structural research.
(7) Line 50 to 51 “Since then, many scholars have carried out related research.” Please cite this authors.
Original text: Since then, many scholars have carried out related research.
Modified text: The literature [21-25] proposes structural parameters based on strength, according to the understanding that “strength and deformation of the soil are controlled by the same structural law”. The above structural parameters basically describe the structural change law of soil during the deformation process, and they reflect the change of soil structure during the stress process [26]. In view of this, references [27、28] proposed the structural parameters based on unconfined compressive strength for undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil - structural index .
(8) Your paragraphs are too long. Please divide them.
Original text: As early as 1948, K. Terzaghi [1], the founder of soil mechanics, pointed out the importance of studying soil structure. With the gradual deepening of research, scholars are paying more and more attention to the study of soil structure, and many scholars have elevated it to the core position of soil mechanics [2-3]. Structure, particle size, density and moisture are considered to be important physical properties of loess [4]. The importance of the study of soil structure is ultimately manifested through its relationship to the mechanical and engineering properties of the soil, so the best method for studying soil structure and its application is still soil mechanics. The greatest advantage of the soil mechanics method is that it avoids the direct determination of the two factors that make up the soil structure, and directly establishes the relationship between structure and engineering properties through the soil mechanics method [5-9].
Ding-yi XIE and Ji-lin QI [10], based on the method of soil mechanics research, first combined the arrangement characteristics and connection characteristics of soil particles, and proposed a standard for determining the structural strength of soil. They proposed a structural parameter that is concise, reliable, practical and can fully reflect the geometric and mechanical characteristics of the soil. As this quantitative parameter is based on the comparison of deformation in compression tests, it is called the quantitative parameter of soil structure based on deformation considerations. Since then, many scholars have carried out related research. The determination of soil structural parameters based on deformation considerations is mostly based on confined compression tests and the structural parameters are determined using stress as a parameter. In the confined compression test, if the compressive deformation is basically stable, the pressure can be increased infinitely and there is no strength failure in the engineering sense. Although some parameters are obtained under triaxial stress conditions, the relationship between pressure and deformation is substantially different between the two test methods, resulting in different expressions of soil structural parameters. When the soil is subjected to the confined compression test, the increase in stress can only eventually reduce the structural parameters of the soil to a stable value corresponding to the degree of compaction. However, the soil under triaxial stress conditions can lead to the weakening of the soil structure until the soil is destroyed [11]. Although the literature [12] has proposed a transformation method that applies soil structural parameters based on deformation considerations to complex stress states, and also summarized the good regularity achieved by this transformation method, there are still obvious deficiencies in this method.
In general, deformation-based structural parameters have certain limitations when applied to complex stress states and do not directly reflect the relationship between soil structure and strength. In order to solve this problem, many scholars have extended the above methods and proposed structural parameters based on strength. The literature [13-17] proposes structural parameters based on strength, according to the understanding that “strength and deformation of the soil are controlled by the same structural law”. The above structural parameters basically describe the structural change law of soil in the process of deformation, and they reflect the change of soil structure during the stress process [18]. In view of this, Shao Sheng-jun proposed the structure index based on the unconfined compressive strength test. As a more important aspect of describing the physical essence of soil than particle size, density, and humidity [19], soil structure is the most fundamental internal factor that determines various soil mechanical properties [20]. Together with particle size, density, and humidity indicators, it provides a more complete description of the physical essence of soil [21]. Structure is an essential property of soil, reflecting its material properties. And the structural index precisely reflects this attribute. Therefore, the structure index is more reasonable than other definitions. However, for some soils that are not suitable for uniaxial compression testing, such as sandy soils and soft clays, there are obvious shortcomings in the study of their structural properties. In addition, in engineering practice there are very few engineering problems in the uniaxial stress state, and the structural index is not suitable for complex stress states. Therefore, using the above definition to study the structure of the soil does not correspond to the stress state of the actual soil at the engineering site.
The purpose of this paper is to evolve and modify it on the "construction" index, and propose a new structural parameter based on strength. This enables the improved structural parameters to be applied not only to complex stress states, but also to soils of all properties. Finally, the improved and newly proposed parameters are tested, compared and verified. Based on a large number of experiments conducted on loess under different humidity and density conditions, the author has carried out some research and exploration on the structural properties of loess [22,23]. References [22, 23] proposed a soil structural parameter that can be directly applied to complex stress conditions. This parameter is called the complex stress structural parameter , and the variation laws of loess structure under different influencing factors were analyzed. The complex stress structural parameters presented in reference [22] were defined based on the shear strength of the soil. However, it did not directly provide the relationship between the structural parameters and the strength indicators of the soil, nor could they be directly used for the strength or stability analysis of the soil. This paper initially explores the relationship between structural parameters and strength indicators of loess, as well as the use of structural parameters to obtain strength indicators of loess in different states, in an attempt to establish a connection between loess structural research and practical engineering applications.
Modified text: Generally, soil structure is defined as the connection characteristics between particles and the arrangement of particles, which includes all the different features between the soil and its corresponding remolded soil [1-3]. In terms of mechanical properties, the structural properties of soil are reflected in its ability to maintain its original structural state without being destroyed. Its essence is the loss of the bonding force between particles in the soil under the impact of external factors, resulting in adjustments to the spatial arrangement of structural units, and changes in pore morphology, size, quantity, and distribution [4,5]. As early as 1948, K. Terzaghi [6], the founder of soil mechanics, pointed out the importance of studying soil structure. With the gradual deepening of research, scholars are increasingly focusing their research on the structure of soil, and they have elevated it to the core position of soil mechanics [7-10]. The importance of the study of soil structure is ultimately manifested through its relationship to the mechanical and engineering properties of the soil, so the best method for studying soil structure and its application is still soil mechanics. The primary advantage of soil mechanics research methods lies in their ability to directly establish the relationship between soil structure and its engineering properties. [11-17].
Based on lateral compression tests conducted on undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil, Xie et al. [18-20] proposed the comprehensive structural potential . The structural parameters (comprehensive structural potential) established through soil mechanics methods comprehensively consider the effects of loading and moisture content on loess structural behavior, thereby pioneering a new approach to soil structural research. The comprehensive structural potential offers advantages such as simplicity and practicality, serving as a structural parameter defined by the strain variable. The strain structural parameters are based on compression tests. When the compressive deformation reaches a state of near-stability, the applied pressure can be increased indefinitely without causing strength failure in an engineering sense. Moreover, the relationship between the axial pressure and compression deformation of the sample shows a strain hardening curve, which is significantly different from the shear failure state of soil. In order to solve this problem, many scholars have extended the above methods and proposed structural parameters based on strength. The literature [21-25] proposes structural parameters based on strength, according to the understanding that “strength and deformation of the soil are controlled by the same structural law”. The above structural parameters basically describe the structural change law of soil during the deformation process, and they reflect the change of soil structure during the stress process [26-28]. In view of this, references [29,30] proposed the structural parameters based on unconfined compressive strength for undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil - structural index . It, along with particle size, density, and moisture content, reflects the fundamental properties of the soil. Therefore, the construction index is more reasonable than other definitions. However, for some soils that are not suitable for uniaxial compression testing, such as sandy soils and soft clays, there are obvious shortcomings in the study of their structural properties. In addition, in engineering practice there are very few engineering problems in the uniaxial stress state, and the structural index is not suitable for complex stress states. Therefore, using the above definition to study the structure of the soil does not correspond to the stress state of the actual soil at the engineering site.
The purpose of this paper is to evolve and modify it on the "construction" index, and propose a new structural parameter based on strength. This makes the improved structural parameters applicable not only to complex stress states, but also to soils of all properties. Finally, the improved and newly proposed parameters are tested, compared and verified. Based on a large number of experiments conducted on loess under different humidity and density conditions, the author has carried out some research and exploration on the structural properties of loess. The author has proposed soil structural parameters applicable to complex stress conditions in reference [31,32]. This parameter is called the complex stress structural parameter , and the variation laws of loess structure under different influencing factors were analyzed. The complex stress structural parameters presented in reference [31,32] were defined based on the shear strength of the soil. However, it cannot reflect the relationship between structural parameters and soil strength indicators, nor can it be directly applied to soil strength or stability analysis. This paper initially explores the relationship between structural parameters and strength indicators of loess, as well as the use of structural parameters to obtain strength indicators of loess in different states, in an attempt to establish a connection between loess structural research and practical engineering applications.
(9) Line 74.”Shao Sheng-jun.” This reference is missed.
Original text: In view of this, Shao Sheng-jun proposed the structure index based on the unconfined compressive strength test.
Modified text: In view of this, references [29,30] proposed the structural parameters based on unconfined compressive strength for undisturbed soil, saturated undisturbed soil, and disturbed remolded soil - structural index . It, along with particle size, density, and moisture content, reflects the fundamental properties of the soil. Therefore, the construction index is more reasonable than other definitions.
Reference 29. Shao S J, Zhou F F, Long J Y. Structural properties of loess and its quantitative parameter. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2004,26(4), 531-536. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2004.04.02
Reference 30. Shao S J, Wang L Q, Tao H, Wang Q, Wang S. Structural index of loess and its relation with granularity, density and humidity. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2014,36(08), 1387-1393. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201408002.
(10) Your introduction is unclear; please revise it. The paragraphs are too long. You should add a more straightforward definition of the parameter and international references.
Original text: See No. 8 Original text
Modified text: See No. 8 Modified text
New References Added:1-5;7;8;17.
The newly added references are as follows:
Reference 1. Li Y R; Zhao J G; Li B. Loess and Loess Geohazards in China; CRC Press, Taiyuan University of Technology, China., 2017.DOI: 10.1201/9781315177281-8.
Reference 2. Li Y R, Shi W H, Aydin A, Beroya-Eitner M A, Gao G H. Loess genesis and worldwide distribution. Earth-Science Reviews, 2020, 201: 102947. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev. 2019.102947.
Reference 3. Liu Z, Liu F, Ma F L, Wang M, Bai X H, Zheng Y L, Yin H, Zhang G P. Collapsibility, composition, and microstructure of loess in China. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2015, 53(4): 673-686. DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2015-0285.
Reference 4. Chen H, Jiang Y L, Gao Y, Yuan X Q. Structural characteristics and its influencing factors of typical loess. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2019. 78: 4893-4905. DOI: 10.1007/s10064-018-1431-2.
Reference 5. Jiang M, Zhang F, Hu H, et al. Structural characterization of natural loess and remolded loess under triaxial tests. Engineering Geology, 2014, 181: 249-260. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.07.021.
Reference 7. Wang H, Tian K, Ma B, Zhang H, Zhang R, Li D. Study on the Dynamic Structural Parameters and Dynamic Structural Constitutive Relation of Intact Loess. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 2021, 58: 100-108. DOI: 10.1007/s11204-021-09713-3.
Reference 8. Wu Z, Xu S, Chen D, Zhao D, Zhang D. An experimental study of the influence of structural parameters on dynamic characteristics of loess[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 132: 106067. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106067.
Reference 17. Meng F, Chen R, Kang X, Li C Z. e-p curve-based structural parameter for assessing clayey soil structure disturbance. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2020, 79: 4387-4398. DOI: 10.1007/s10064-020-01833-8.
(11) Line 189-“light compaction” equal to standard proctor energy? Please clarify.
Original text: A light compaction test was carried out and the natural moisture content of the soil sample was 10.7%,
Modified text: The physical properties of the soil samples were determined in accordance with the Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T 50123–2019) [33], and the results are presented in Table 2-1.
(12) Tables 1 and 2. Please add the dry density and moisture content of each sample. Are these parameters in function of total stress?
Original text: Table 1 Shear strength parameters obtained from direct shear test
|
Soil sample status |
Undisturbed soil |
Remolded soil |
Undisturbed saturated soil |
Remolded saturated soil |
|
/° |
26.29 |
17 |
10.5 |
4.7 |
|
/kPa |
31.25 |
27.2 |
21.65 |
16.28 |
Table 2 Contribution of strength parameters to structural parameters in direct shear test
|
Contribution value of remolded soil |
Contribution value of undisturbed saturated soil |
|
=1.55 |
=2.5 |
|
=1.08 |
=1.21 |
The moisture content, dry density and saturated moisture content of the undisturbed soil samples are all presented in added Table 2-1. The parameters in the table do not change with the variation of applied stress, as they all depend on the strength index (). The strength index is a material property of soil and an inherent characteristic that does not change with variations in stress.
Modified text: Table 2-1. Physical indexs of loess
|
moisture content |
Dry density |
Saturated moisture content |
Relative density |
Liquid limit |
Plastic limit |
Plasticity index |
|
11% |
1.26g/cm3 |
36% |
2.68g/cm3 |
27.6% |
16.8% |
10.8 |
(13) Triaxial tests are usually done in saturated samples. How did you do your triaxial test in unsaturated samples?
The author has completed the response to this issue in the previous round of revisions. According to the Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T 50123–2019), triaxial tests can be conducted on soil samples with various moisture contents for shear tests. This standard has also been added to reference 33.
(14) Line 214 to 217: Explain better how this parameter can be constant if it changes depending on the used equipment.
Original text: The results of the structural modification parameter definition and the evolution definition are both stable values that can be regarded as material constants that capture the fundamental properties of the soil and remain constant under a variety of test conditions, including confining pressure, strain and stress.
Modified text: The structural modification parameters and evolution definitions mainly involve strength parameters (c, φ), which belong to the essential properties of soil and can be regarded as material constants. The values of c and φ remain constant under all test conditions, and thus the structural modification parameters and evolution parameters are also fixed values under all test conditions.
(15) Lines 230-231: Explain how loess can have “with strong structural Properties”.
Original text: Formula (1) is only applicable to soils with strong structural properties such as loess,
Modified text: Formula (1) is only applicable to soils with obvious structural characteristics such as loess.
(16) Line 293-297: Are you considering total stress?
Original text: Formula (12) is the final calculation formula for the structural parameters of loess under complex stress conditions after evolution. The major and minor principal stress levels of the specimen and the values of the strength parameters at failure can be determined by the triaxial shear test. By substituting these values into the formula, the values of the structure parameters can be derived (12).
Modified text: Formula (12) is the final calculation formula for the complex stress structural parameter after evolution. Through triaxial testing, the values of the major and minor principal stresses ( and ) at specimen failure, as well as the strength parameters and , can be determined. By substituting these values into formula (12), the values of the complex stress structural parameter can be obtained.
(17) Line 302-304 Please rewrite.
Original text: The new parameters change the soil samples from compacted soil and undisturbed saturated soil to undisturbed saturated soil. This simplifies the test conditions and reduces the sample size, while reducing the structural stability and variability of the soil.
Modified text: The definition of the original structural index involves soil samples in three states: undisturbed sample, remolded sample, and saturated sample. The definition of the new complex stress structural parameter, however, only includes soil samples in two states: undisturbed samples and remolded saturated samples. This simplifies the experimental conditions, reduces the sample size, and decreases the workload.
(18) Lines 320-323: Are these “Weinan loess from Shaanxi” the same soil presented in Lines 188-191? Why are the properties different?
Original text: The test soil, Weinan loess from Shaanxi, was excavated to a depth of about 5 meters. The soil is a similar shade of brownish-yellow, powdery clay with a few wormholes and occasional snail shells. The dry density is 1.26g/cm3, the natural moisture content is 11% and the saturated moisture content is 36%. Table 5 shows other physical property indices.
Modified text: The soil used in the experiment is the same as that in section 2.3.1, which is Weinan loess from Shaanxi Province. The physical property indexs of the loess are shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Physical indexs of loess
|
moisture content |
Dry density |
Saturated moisture content |
Relative density |
Liquid limit |
Plastic limit |
Plasticity index |
|
11% |
1.26g/cm3 |
36% |
2.68g/cm3 |
27.6% |
16.8% |
10.8 |
(19) Line 322: What is the condition for dry density is 1.26g/cm3? Compacted? Natural?
The author has completed the response to this question in the previous round of revisions. The natural dry density of the undisturbed soil sample is 1.26 g/cm³.
(20) Line 328: Please add more detail on how you performed triaxial tests on samples with different moisture content. What was the B value of these tests? Which was the stress path adopted?
Original text: Undisturbed soil has moisture contents of 6%, 11%, 16%, 21%, 26%, 31%, and 36%, respectively, to reflect how moisture content affects structure and structural parameter values.
Modified text: The variation patterns of structural parameters in undisturbed loess under different moisture contents were investigated. A consolidated undrained triaxial shear test was conducted, with strict control of experimental variables. All soil specimens were sampled from the same source material and prepared to achieve uniform dry density. Seven groups of loess samples with target moisture contents of 6%, 11%, 16%, 21%, 26%, 31%, and 36% were prepared for testing.
(21) Table 6. Please add the moisture content of each sample.
The moisture content of the sample is shown in the table.
Original text: Table 6. Structural parameters of soil samples with different moisture contents and their structural parameter ratios
|
Moisture content /% |
Structural parameters and structural parameter ratios under different confining pressures |
Average parameter ratio |
|||||||
|
Confining pressure 100kPa |
Confining pressure 200kPa |
Confining pressure 300kPa |
Confining pressure 400kPa |
||||||
|
6% |
3.5 |
1.074 |
3.21 |
1.078 |
3.03 |
1.09 |
2.93 |
1.081 |
1.08 |
|
11% |
3.26 |
1 |
2.98 |
1 |
2.78 |
1 |
2.71 |
1 |
1 |
|
16% |
2.87 |
0.88 |
2.64 |
0.886 |
2.47 |
0.888 |
2.44 |
0.9 |
0.889 |
|
21% |
2.48 |
0.76 |
2.38 |
0.799 |
2.29 |
0.824 |
2.23 |
0.823 |
0.802 |
|
26% |
2.17 |
0.666 |
2.13 |
0.715 |
2.07 |
0.745 |
2.03 |
0.749 |
0.719 |
|
31% |
2.02 |
0.62 |
2.01 |
0.674 |
1.98 |
0.712 |
1.94 |
0.716 |
0.681 |
|
36% |
1.91 |
0.586 |
1.86 |
0.624 |
1.84 |
0.662 |
1.83 |
0.675 |
0.637 |
Modified text: Table 4-1. Structural parameters of soil samples with different moisture contents and their structural parameter ratios
|
Moisture content /% |
Structural parameters and structural parameter ratios under different confining pressures |
Average parameter ratio |
|||||||
|
Confining pressure 100kPa |
Confining pressure 200kPa |
Confining pressure 300kPa |
Confining pressure 400kPa |
||||||
|
6 |
3.5 |
1.074 |
3.21 |
1.078 |
3.03 |
1.09 |
2.93 |
1.081 |
1.08 |
|
11 |
3.26 |
1 |
2.98 |
1 |
2.78 |
1 |
2.71 |
1 |
1 |
|
16 |
2.87 |
0.88 |
2.64 |
0.886 |
2.47 |
0.888 |
2.44 |
0.9 |
0.889 |
|
21 |
2.48 |
0.76 |
2.38 |
0.799 |
2.29 |
0.824 |
2.23 |
0.823 |
0.802 |
|
26 |
2.17 |
0.666 |
2.13 |
0.715 |
2.07 |
0.745 |
2.03 |
0.749 |
0.719 |
|
31 |
2.02 |
0.62 |
2.01 |
0.674 |
1.98 |
0.712 |
1.94 |
0.716 |
0.681 |
|
36 |
1.91 |
0.586 |
1.86 |
0.624 |
1.84 |
0.662 |
1.83 |
0.675 |
0.637 |
(22) Table 7: Please add the dry density of the samples.
The dry density of the sample is shown in the table.
Original text: Table 7. Structural parameters of soil samples with different dry densities and their structural parameter ratios
|
Dry density/ (g/cm3) |
Structural parameters and structural parameter ratios under different confining pressures |
Average parameter ratio |
|||||||
|
Confining pressure 100kPa |
Confining pressure 200kPa |
Confining pressure 300kPa |
Confining pressure 400kPa |
||||||
|
1.28 |
3.58 |
1.098 |
3.32 |
1.114 |
3.03 |
1.09 |
2.82 |
1.04 |
1.086 |
|
1.35 |
3.5 |
1.074 |
3.26 |
1.094 |
2.98 |
1.072 |
2.78 |
1.026 |
1.066 |
|
1.36 |
3.26 |
1 |
2.98 |
1 |
2.78 |
1 |
2.71 |
1 |
1 |
|
1.41 |
3.03 |
0.929 |
2.72 |
0.913 |
2.62 |
0.942 |
2.52 |
0.93 |
0.929 |
|
1.42 |
2.93 |
0.899 |
2.67 |
0.896 |
2.55 |
0.917 |
2.46 |
0.908 |
0.905 |
Modified text: Table 4-2. Structural parameters of soil samples with different dry densities and their structural parameter ratios
|
Dry density/ (g/cm3) |
Structural parameters and structural parameter ratios under different confining pressures |
Average parameter ratio |
|||||||
|
Confining pressure 100kPa |
Confining pressure 200kPa |
Confining pressure 300kPa |
Confining pressure 400kPa |
||||||
|
1.28 |
3.58 |
1.098 |
3.32 |
1.114 |
3.03 |
1.09 |
2.82 |
1.04 |
1.086 |
|
1.35 |
3.5 |
1.074 |
3.26 |
1.094 |
2.98 |
1.072 |
2.78 |
1.026 |
1.066 |
|
1.36 |
3.26 |
1 |
2.98 |
1 |
2.78 |
1 |
2.71 |
1 |
1 |
|
1.41 |
3.03 |
0.929 |
2.72 |
0.913 |
2.62 |
0.942 |
2.52 |
0.93 |
0.929 |
|
1.42 |
2.93 |
0.899 |
2.67 |
0.896 |
2.55 |
0.917 |
2.46 |
0.908 |
0.905 |
(23) Line 191:Did you do a statistical test to prove “sense regularity in a statistical sense”?
Original text: In order to verify the structural evolution parameters and modify the parameter definitions, direct shear tests and triaxial tests are designed. The test soil samples were taken from Weinan City, Shaanxi Province, at a depth of approximately 5m. A light compaction test was carried out and the natural moisture content of the soil sample was 10.7%, the maximum dry density was 1.71g/cm3 and the optimum moisture content was 16.34%. The undisturbed, remodeled, undisturbed saturated and remodeled saturated soil samples required for the uniaxial compressive strength, direct shear and conventional triaxial tests were prepared according to the specifications based on the basic tests. The relevant strength and structural parameters obtained from direct shear tests are as follows.
Modified text: In order to verify the structural evolution parameters and modify the parameter definitions, direct shear experiments and triaxial experiments are designed. The test soil samples were obtained from loess in Weinan, Shaanxi Province. Undisturbed soil samples were collected using the borehole method at a sampling depth of 5 meters below ground level. The loess is brownish-yellow, consisting of powdery clay. It contains wormholes, and snail shells are occasionally found. The physical properties of the soil samples were determined in accordance with the Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T 50123–2019) [33], and the results are presented in Table 2-1.
(24) Table 10. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 8? Please explain why they are not identical.
This issue was addressed in the previous round of revisions. Table 10 presents the calculated values obtained from the fitting function, while Table 8 shows the experimental values derived from the tests.
(25) Table 11. Does the second column, “Structural parameter ratio (Computed values),” refer to the result of your proposed methodology? Please explain better. Are the second to fourth columns the values presented in Table 9? Please explain why they are not identical.
This issue was addressed in the previous round of revisions. Table 11 presents the calculated values obtained from the fitting function, while Table 9 shows the experimental values derived from the tests.
(26) Line 460-465. It should be interesting to use literature results to demonstrate that your methodology is effective. Please add this comparison.
Original text: By combining equations (19) and (20), it can be concluded that the corresponding structural parameter ratio of undisturbed loess can be obtained from any given dry density and moisture content. By combining equations (19) and (20) with the natural moisture content of unsaturated loess and its corresponding triaxial shear strength index value, the shear strength index of unsaturated loess in any given environment with different structural states can be solved.
Modified text: By combining Formulas (19) and (20), it can be concluded that the structural parameter ratio of undisturbed loess can be determined from any given dry density and moisture content. By combining equations (19) and (20) with the natural moisture content of unsaturated loess and its corresponding triaxial shear strength index value, the shear strength index of unsaturated loess in any given environment with different structural states can be solved [43-45].
(27) Line 486-490 I disagree because you did not present results from complex stress states.
The in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are the values of the complex stress structural parameters obtained through triaxial shear tests.
Original text: In order to solve the problem that structural evolution parameters and modified parameters cannot adapt to complex stress states, a new solution is proposed - structural parameters for complex stress states in loess. Triaxial shear tests were conducted on soil samples with different moisture contents and different dry densities, and the complex stress state structural parameters and strength indicators of the soil samples under relevant conditions were obtained.
Modified text: In order to solve the problem that structural evolution parameters and modified parameters cannot adapt to complex stress states, a new solution is proposed - structural parameters for complex stress states in loess. Triaxial shear tests were conducted on soil samples with varying moisture contents and dry densities, and the corresponding complex stress structural parameters and strength indices were obtained under these conditions.
Comments 2. Please add the standards used for the direct triaxial test and direct shear test
Response 2: The standards used for the direct shear tests and triaxial shear tests have been supplemented in the text.
(1)
Original text: The physical properties of the soil samples were decided by laboratory testing, with the results presented in Table 2-1.
Modified text: The physical properties of the soil samples were determined in accordance with the Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T 50123–2019) [33], and the results are presented in Table 2-1.
(2)
Original text: The undisturbed, remodeled, undisturbed saturated and remodeled saturated soil samples required for the uniaxial compressive strength, direct shear and conventional triaxial tests were prepared according to the specifications based on the basic tests.
Modified text: Undisturbed, remolded, undisturbed saturated, and remolded saturated soil samples were prepared in accordance with the Standard for Geotechnical Test Methods (GB/T 50123–2019) [33]. Uniaxial compression tests, direct shear tests, and triaxial shear tests were conducted in compliance with this standard.
Comments 3. The conclusion number (1) should be merged with the conclusion introduction, because it is not a conclusion of your research, but rather a knowledge gap.
Response 3: The structural evolution parameters and structural modification parameters mentioned in conclusion (1) of this paper are concepts we have proposed ourselves. The calculation formulas (formulas 4-7) for them are also derived through mechanical reasoning by us and are our own research findings.
Comments 4. The conclusion number (7) should not be numbered. It is not a conclusion. It should be a normal final paragraph that points out the perspective for the future in this research.
Response 4: We have followed your advice and deleted conclusion number (7), as it is indeed not a conclusion of this article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
