The Parameter of Soil Structural Properties and Their Relationship to Grain Size, Density, and Moisture Content

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article presents a parameter that relates the strength in the unsaturated state, which occurs in situ conditions, to the strength of the processed and saturated material, which may arise when interfering with the soil. The concept of the research is sensible and the assumptions are correct in general.

General comments:

Despite the fact that the “new parameter” is based on the strength obtained from triaxial tests, the article does not present a single diagram from TRX tests. What was the criterion of destruction? E.g. maximum value of stress deviator or specific strain? In the case of intact (cemented and unsaturated) and processed (saturated) soils, the nature of the damage may be different. Loess (silty) soils often lack the classic shear (deviator fall), especially at higher stresses. Therefore, curves (σ'1-σ'3) – ε should be presented, preferably collectively or grouped according to e.g. depth/moisture.

The intact behaviour of loess samples can vary significantly despite similar moisture. This is due to the process of their formation, work in an unsaturated state, cementation effects, etc. This is particularly evident at moisture levels below the yield point, and such soils are analysed here. This is well shown by in situ tests such as CPTU or DMT. Were such tests carried out for the analysed plot? If so, you should present diagrams with marked depths of the samples taken. Especially since the text indicates the possibility of analyzing the proposed parameter in situ tests (e.g. line 145).

Detail comments:

The text is written not clearly (e.g. Abstract 22-28 - two convoluted sentences that say the same thing). A lot of fragments in the form of a description of what is on the charts. A lot of not necessary fragments, e.g. the definition of the arithmetic mean, common know  formulas (2-7). Below please find some technical notes and specific issues that need to be clarified or corrected:

- The title states that the new parameter is analyzed in relation to grain size. There are no such analyses in the text. No grain size curves;

- The title is not consistent with the content: in the text we have dependencies between Dry Density, Moisture Content, Confining Pressure?

-  It is necessary to decide on a uniform form regarding the terms used in text, e.g.:  Moisture Content or Water Content?

- There is no description of input data and for the components of the discussed formula. Lack of summary table with the results of strength in the natural and reconstructed state;

- No traceability data for these samples. The analyses are carried out on samples from Table 1 (less 1, 2 with a given wp...) and samples with w= 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31 % E.g., Figure 1 contains data for saturated samples??? Is the moisture content of samples other than table 1? It is not known definitively how many samples were tested or repeated and what their identification parameters were?

-   Inaccurate description of sample reconstruction. There is no clear description of the method of saturation of samples apart from drying and saturated (what is the saturation criterion and methodology? If saturation was procced in TRX is a Skempton parameter? What is its value? If not, maybe the degree of moisture Sr? what is its value?);

-  How many samples in saturation state were taken from the natural state to a certain saturation? There was more natural samples?

-  Incorrect description of figures: 3, 4, 8 not full description of figs. 4, 6;

- Table 2 contains the same data as fig. 1, Table 4 contains the same data as fig. 3, these tables does bring nothing new in the text?

The article indicates interesting directions in the research for a new approach to the assessment of loess. I'm not entirely convinced whether this is really a “new parameter”, or rather an attempt at a new description of the behavior of loess as a function of identification parameters?

The article requires corrections and additions indicated in the review. Additional explanations and descriptions of the research (i.e. adding grain curves, TRX test results) will improve the readability of the presented content and the substantive quality of the article. After taking into account the comments given, the article can be further processed. I leave the decision in this regard to the publisher.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Linguistic correction is also expected due to too unclear wording.

Author Response

Review 1

Comments 1:

Despite the fact that the “new parameter” is based on the strength obtained from triaxial tests, the article does not present a single diagram from TRX tests. What was the criterion of destruction? E.g. maximum value of stress deviator or specific strain? In the case of intact (cemented and unsaturated) and processed (saturated) soils, the nature of the damage may be different. Loess (silty) soils often lack the classic shear (deviator fall), especially at higher stresses. Therefore, curves (σ'1-σ'3) – ε should be presented, preferably collectively or grouped according to e.g. depth/moisture.

Response 1: The criteria for soil sample failure and the criteria for the end of the test have been added to the text. Additionally, the shear strength values of undisturbed soil samples with different moisture contents and dry densities, as well as remolded saturated soil samples, have been included. The stress-strain curves have not been added. This is because according to the definition of structural parameters in the text, the shear strength is used as the standard for calculation. Therefore, the shear strength is necessary. The stress-strain variation characteristics do not have decisive significance for the structural changes and the acquisition of structural parameters. Moreover, due to the limited length of the article, the results and analysis of the stress-strain of the soil samples were not included.

Comments 2：

The intact behaviour of loess samples can vary significantly despite similar moisture. This is due to the process of their formation, work in an unsaturated state, cementation effects, etc. This is particularly evident at moisture levels below the yield point, and such soils are analysed here. This is well shown by in situ tests such as CPTU or DMT. Were such tests carried out for the analysed plot? If so, you should present diagrams with marked depths of the samples taken. Especially since the text indicates the possibility of analyzing the proposed parameter in situ tests (e.g. line 145).

 

Response 2: As you stated, from an absolute perspective, the integrity of loess soil samples indeed varies. However, this article mainly provides a new definition for structural parameters and mainly considers the differences and changes in the properties of undisturbed soil and remolded saturated soil based on this new definition, analyzing the changing patterns of structural properties. Therefore, the influence of soil particle size, moisture content, and density on the structural properties of the soil is mainly considered. Thus, the soil moisture content, dry density, and particle size composition are the main factors considered in this article. The on-site testing mentioned in the text means that the new definition of structural parameters proposed in this article can directly obtain structural parameters from indoor test results, or obtain them from in-situ test results. This proves the convenience and wide application of the new definition of structural parameters given in this article. This article did not conduct in-situ tests such as CPTU or DMT. Regarding the methods for obtaining soil samples, the test process and methods have all been included in the text.

Comments 3:

The text is written not clearly (e.g. Abstract 22-28 - two convoluted sentences that say the same thing). A lot of fragments in the form of a description of what is on the charts. A lot of not necessary fragments, e.g. the definition of the arithmetic mean, common know  formulas (2-7). Below please find some technical notes and specific issues that need to be clarified or corrected:

Response 3: The relevant issues raised have been corrected, and the complex and repetitive content has been streamlined.

- Comments 4：

The title states that the new parameter is analyzed in relation to grain size. There are no such analyses in the text. No grain size curves;

Response 4: Added the content related to the analysis of soil sample particle composition.

- Comments 5：

The title is not consistent with the content: in the text we have dependencies between Dry Density, Moisture Content, Confining Pressure?

Response 5: The topic refers to the relationship between structural parameters and granularity, density and humidity. The text does not mention that there is a connection between dry density, moisture content and confining pressure. The research focuses on the influence of these three factors on the structure. Because the definition of structural parameters in the text is based on shear strength as the standard, and shear strength is only related to the basic properties of the soil sample. Therefore, when discussing the changing patterns of the structure, the discussion of these three factors is indispensable. This is not contradictory to the title of the article.

- Comments 6：

 It is necessary to decide on a uniform form regarding the terms used in text, e.g.:  Moisture Content or Water Content?

Response 6: The author has completed the review of the entire text and made corrections for the corresponding issues.

- Comments 7：

There is no description of input data and for the components of the discussed formula. Lack of summary table with the results of strength in the natural and reconstructed state;

Response 7: The data obtained from the experiments (the strength values of the original loess and the remolded loess samples) have been incorporated into the text and corresponding analyses have been conducted on them.

- Comments 8：

No traceability data for these samples. The analyses are carried out on samples from Table 1 (less 1, 2 with a given wp...) and samples with w= 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31 % E.g., Figure 1 contains data for saturated samples??? Is the moisture content of samples other than table 1? It is not known definitively how many samples were tested or repeated and what their identification parameters were?

Response 8: The data related to the experiments in the original paper were not fully presented. Now, the relevant experimental data and results have been incorporated into the text.

-  Comments 9：

 Inaccurate description of sample reconstruction. There is no clear description of the method of saturation of samples apart from drying and saturated (what is the saturation criterion and methodology? If saturation was procced in TRX is a Skempton parameter? What is its value? If not, maybe the degree of moisture Sr? what is its value?);

 How many samples in saturation state were taken from the natural state to a certain saturation? There was more natural samples?

Response 9: Supplementary content regarding the above issues has been incorporated into the article, specifically in Section 2.2.2.

- Comments 10：

 Incorrect description of figures: 3, 4, 8 not full description of figs. 4, 6;

Response 10: The incorrect descriptions have been corrected and the incomplete ones have been supplemented. The figures in the paper have also been corrected (Figures 8 and 9).

- - Comments 11：

Table 2 contains the same data as fig. 1, Table 4 contains the same data as fig. 3, these tables does bring nothing new in the text?

Response 11: Table 2 in the original text is changed to Table 4, Figure 1 is changed to Figure 5, Table 4 is changed to Table 6, and Figure 3 is changed to Figure 7. Table 4 contains the same data as Figure 5, and Table 6 also contains the same data as Figure 5. However, the objects and contents described in these figures are different. Table 4 is a quantitative analysis of the impact of dry density on structural properties, calculating the weight values of the impact of dry density on structural properties. Figure 1 is the curve showing the changes in structural parameters of soil samples with different moisture contents and confining pressures, reflecting the influence of confining pressure (loading) on structural properties. Although the data are the same, the work done and the analysis content are different.

The article indicates interesting directions in the research for a new approach to the assessment of loess. I'm not entirely convinced whether this is really a “new parameter”, or rather an attempt at a new description of the behavior of loess as a function of identification parameters?

Response 12: The teacher's point on this matter is quite correct. The author's description is inaccurate here. It cannot be called a "new parameter", but rather a new expression form of a structural parameter. The author has already made corrections regarding this issue.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-3402509

Type: Article

Title: The New Parameters of Soil Structural Properties and Their Relationship to Grain Size, Density, and Moisture Content

Description: Authors in the article introduced a new structural parameter to characterize the mechanical properties of soils and their evolving patterns. Soil structural attributes, along with grain size, density and moisture content, serve as indicators of its material composition and condition characteristics, providing quantitative descriptors of soil structure. These attributes are not only related to grain size, density and moisture content of the soil's material composition and condition, but are fundamentally linked to the spatial distribution of soil particles in the soil skeleton and the nature of intermolecular bonds. The distribution of soil particles and inter-particle bonds in the soil skeleton exhibit both stability to withstand external loads and variability that can lead to damage. A new structural parameter proposed by the authors, derived from a comparison of stability and variability in loess structure, is defined as the ratio of the shear strength of undisturbed loess to the shear strength of re-formed saturated loess.

By analyzing the principles of variation of the structural parameter proposed by the authors with respect to differences in water content and yield stress, its relationship with yield stress and liquid limit, and the principles of variation of the structural parameter with liquidity index, Authors attempted to clarify the basic relationships between structural parameters and grain size, density and moisture content. By analyzing the relationship between the structural parameters of loess and the complex physical properties characterized by the fluidity index, dry density and pore ratio. Authors attempted to explain the monotonic principle of variation of loess structural properties in relation to complex physical properties under conditions of similar dry density.

Comments:

1 In Section 2.2 Test Materials and Test Program, other than general descriptions of the tests and references to 2 other articles by other authors, there is no documentation of the tests performed.

No one.

There are neither photos of test stands, nor samples, nor apparatus, nor information about test technology. There are no geological maps with sampling locations, etc.

In general, the entire article cites research results that are not documented in any way.

This requires extensive and good documentation.

2. The same is the case in part 3.1 Results relationship ....

There are results given, including m_t functions on figures, but there is no data on which m_t was calculated.

3. It is confusing to call curves a breakline connecting points (e.g. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

4. As written before there are no results, descriptions, pictures for either dry or water-saturated samples.

5. In 4.1 Relationship ...

Figures and functions are given about which nothing is known. There are no equations of these functions, the goodness of fit. Also, it is not possible, for example, to evaluate the trend / relationship based on, for example, the slope of the curves, because once this angle decreases and once it increases as “w” increases. Figures, e.g. 4 are at different scales of the X and Y axes, and it is impossible to assess / compare visually the relationship.

The same is with Fig. 5.

6. The same is the case in Fig. 7. we do not know the goodness of fit. Why are there linear functions in Fig. 7a and non-linear functions in Fig. 7?

7. In Fig. 8 there is a title “Variation”, but in fact this “Variation” is not described / defined in any way. It is simply a cloud of points pointing to values.

 

In summary: The article cannot be published in this form. It needs additions and corrections, especially documenting the research done.

Other details in *.pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

Review 2

Comments 1:

1 In Section 2.2 Test Materials and Test Program, other than general descriptions of the tests and references to 2 other articles by other authors, there is no documentation of the tests performed.

Response：Reply: The experimental process, related contents and illustrations have been supplemented.

No one.

There are neither photos of test stands, nor samples, nor apparatus, nor information about test technology. There are no geological maps with sampling locations, etc.

In general, the entire article cites research results that are not documented in any way.

This requires extensive and good documentation.

Response: The details regarding sample preparation, testing instruments and sampling information have been incorporated into the article, they were in section 2.2.2.

Comments 2:

The same is the case in part 3.1 Results relationship ....

There are results given, including m_t functions on figures, but there is no data on which m_t was calculated.

Response: The calculation process and data have been supplemented in the text. Please refer to Table 3.

Comments 3.

It is confusing to call curves a breakline connecting points (e.g. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

Response 3: Figures 1 and 2 in the original text are now Figures 5 and 6. These two figures are originally line-point graphs, depicting the trend and characteristics of the data. The inappropriate textual descriptions have been removed and replaced.

Comments 4.

As written before there are no results, descriptions, pictures for either dry or water-saturated samples.

Response 4：The descriptions and pictures of the dry and saturated samples have been supplemented.

Comments 5.

In 4.1 Relationship ...

Figures and functions are given about which nothing is known. There are no equations of these functions, the goodness of fit. Also, it is not possible, for example, to evaluate the trend / relationship based on, for example, the slope of the curves, because once this angle decreases and once it increases as “w” increases. Figures, e.g. 4 are at different scales of the X and Y axes, and it is impossible to assess / compare visually the relationship.

The same is with Fig. 5.

Response 5: The figures 4 and 5 were redrawn. All the variation curves were plotted on the same graph, which enables a better comparison and analysis.

Comments 6.

The same is the case in Fig. 7. we do not know the goodness of fit. Why are there linear functions in Fig. 7a and non-linear functions in Fig. 7?

Response 6：The description in this paragraph is inaccurate and has been revised.

Comments 7.

In Fig. 8 there is a title “Variation”, but in fact this “Variation” is not described / defined in any way. It is simply a cloud of points pointing to values.

Response 7：This part has been revised and rewritten:

Comments 8：

It is not clear to me why all names do not begin with a capital letter. As a rule, in articles both names / surnames begin with a capital letter. Please check this. This remark applies to the whole article, please.

Response 8：I have checked the entire text and made revisions

 

Comments 9：Please also write the quantity names above the size symbols, e.g.:

Response 9：This issue has been corrected.

 

Comments 10：Each word in the title of the table is capitalized, e.g. “Indicators of Loess ...”

Response10：This issue has been corrected. Each word in the table title should be capitalized.

 

Comments 11：Please use the same number of decimal places after the dot in the columns.:

These remarks applies to the whole article, please.

Response11：This issue has been corrected.

 

Comments 12：Please arrange the case of words in the titles of sections / subsections. At the moment, in some cases all words are capitalized, and in other cases only the first word in the section / subsection title. This remark applies to the whole article, please.

Response12：This issue has been corrected.

 

Comments 13：I don't know why some units are written in cursive type and others in straight type, e.g.: g/cm3 vs. kPa. This remark applies to the whole article, please.

Response13：This issue has been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the Authors for the effort put into improving the article and providing explanations in cover letter. In general, most of the comments have been taken into account or explained as far as possible. I still maintain only one remark concerning the presentation of the curves (σ'1-σ'3) – ε from triaxial tests. I agree with the authors that the stress-strain variation characteristics do not have decisive significance for the structural changes and the acquisition.

However, from a scientific point of view, it is very interesting to show how samples with a natural structure behaved in the triaxal tests, and how those with a reconstituted structure behaved. There is a place for it because I don't see the point of showing a photo of the equipment or samples.

Please consider this possibility, because this data is available and has been registered.

With this remark taken into account, the article may be approved for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer，

Thank you for your guidance and valuable suggestions all along, which have been very helpful to us. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to you!

Best regards,

Yours faithfully.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,
My suggested corrections and revisions have been made.
The article can be published.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully.

Author Response

I would like to thank the Authors for the effort put into improving the article and providing explanations in cover letter. In general, most of the comments have been taken into account or explained as far as possible. I still maintain only one remark concerning the presentation of the curves (σ'1-σ'3) – ε from triaxial tests. I agree with the authors that the stress-strain variation characteristics do not have decisive significance for the structural changes and the acquisition.

However, from a scientific point of view, it is very interesting to show how samples with a natural structure behaved in the triaxal tests, and how those with a reconstituted structure behaved. There is a place for it because I don't see the point of showing a photo of the equipment or samples.

Please consider this possibility, because this data is available and has been registered.

With this remark taken into account, the article may be approved for publication.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Based on your feedback, I have made revisions to the manuscript. The stress-strain characteristics analysis of undisturbed soil and remolded soil has been added.