Research on Dynamic Stress–Strain Change Rules of Rubber-Particle-Mixed Sand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have examined the dynamic stress-strain, elastic modulus, damping ratio and cumulative strain generated for the rubber mixed sand particles. The study is awe-inspiring and informative. However, here are a few of the suggestions from my side to strengthen the manuscript and for readers' interest:

1. The comparison part of the study included the comparison with pure sand. However, authors have used a different proportion of rubber mixed with sand. In my view, the trend should be discussed including all the proportion of rubber particles. Not only larger or reduced. 

2. Explain the outcome of a number of figures shown in fig. 10 to 13 in a comparative way.. what is the fundamental difference that should be explained in the manuscript? Here results are ok but need to discuss them in a comparative way.

3. Authors should cite some other researchers' work for comparison purposes. Like validation of findings must be supported through references

4. Figure 6 and 7 must be elaborated through lebels. Better if authors made it in collarge way to show the steps involved. Pictorial represent must impress the readers.

5. How much percentage of rubber can be added maximum and why? should be explain in experimental procedure 

 

Author Response

Authors have examined the dynamic stress-strain, elastic modulus, damping ratio and cumulative strain generated for the rubber mixed sand particles. The study is awe-inspiring and informative. However, here are a few of the suggestions from my side to strengthen the manuscript and for readers' interest:

We are very grateful to the reviewer for again evaluating our manuscript and his/her significant comment, that greatly help to improve our manuscript. Below we provide point-by-point response to the reviewer comments.

1. The comparison part of the study included the comparison with pure sand. However, authors have used a different proportion of rubber mixed with sand. In my view, the trend should be discussed including all the proportion of rubber particles. Not only larger or reduced. 

Response: We have discussed the all the proportion of rubber particles in the revised draft of our manuscript.

 

2. Explain the outcome of a number of figures shown in fig. 10 to 13 in a comparative way.. what is the fundamental difference that should be explained in the manuscript? Here results are ok but need to discuss them in a comparative way.

Response: We have discussed the outcome of a number of figures shown in fig. 10 to 13 in a comparative way. Moreover, we elaborate the basic difference in the revised manuscript.

3. Authors should cite some other researchers' work for comparison purposes. Like validation of findings must be supported through references

Response: We have added more references to support the comparison in our revised manuscript.

4. Figure 6 and 7 must be elaborated through lebels. Better if authors made it in collarge way to show the steps involved. Pictorial represent must impress the readers.

Response: We have elaborated the figures 6 and 7 through labels.

5. How much percentage of rubber can be added maximum and why? should be explain in experimental procedure 

 Response: We have explained the maximum percentage of rubber that are added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is focused on the dynamic stress-strain hysteresis curve, dynamic elastic modulus, and damping ratio of the saturated rubber mixed sand.

The authors concluded that “the dynamic elastic modulus and shear stiffness of rubber mixed sand samples are smaller than those of pure sand samples under the cyclic loading while their damping ratios are greater than that of pure sand samples, which promotes vibration resistance and reduction to a larger extent.” However, this does not seem to be a novel finding, as the authors themselves refer to the damping characteristics of rubber in the first line of the introduction. Considering this, the improvement of the abstract is highly recommended to reflect novel findings of this research.  

Please avoid qualitative statements like “good damping characteristics” that do not provide useful information for the reader.

Abbreviations need to be fully mentioned the first time they appear in the text.

The literature review is not complete, and the gap that this work closes is not clear.

Please avoid “etc.” in the text as it should be specific.

The results obtained need to be further justified; for example, the authors in section 3.2.1 mentioned “so the stress-strain hysteresis curve showed a totally different changing form from the pure sand”, however, further explanation concerned with the reason is missing.

In conclusion, “With 30% mixing amount of rubber in the particle size of 0.75 mm, the dynamic elastic modulus of the samples showed a maximum decrease, 0.58 MPa.” Please provide the relative decrease in percent so that the reader can better sense the changes.  

Research limitations and future research directions should be added to the paper.

Author Response

This study is focused on the dynamic stress-strain hysteresis curve, dynamic elastic modulus, and damping ratio of the saturated rubber mixed sand.

The authors concluded that “the dynamic elastic modulus and shear stiffness of rubber mixed sand samples are smaller than those of pure sand samples under the cyclic loading while their damping ratios are greater than that of pure sand samples, which promotes vibration resistance and reduction to a larger extent.” However, this does not seem to be a novel finding, as the authors themselves refer to the damping characteristics of rubber in the first line of the introduction. Considering this, the improvement of the abstract is highly recommended to reflect novel findings of this research.  

Please avoid qualitative statements like “good damping characteristics” that do not provide useful information for the reader.

Response: We the revised the sentence following the reviewer comments and avoid qualitative statements throughout the text.

Abbreviations need to be fully mentioned the first time they appear in the text.

Response: We have defined the abbreviations at the place where they appear first in the manuscript.

The literature review is not complete, and the gap that this work closes is not clear.

Response: We have bridged the gap in the manuscript trough literature review.

Please avoid “etc.” in the text as it should be specific.

Response: We have avoided the “etc.” in the text.

 

The results obtained need to be further justified; for example, the authors in section 3.2.1 mentioned “so the stress-strain hysteresis curve showed a totally different changing form from the pure sand”, however, further explanation concerned with the reason is missing.

Response: We have further justified the results and add further explanation.

In conclusion, “With 30% mixing amount of rubber in the particle size of 0.75 mm, the dynamic elastic modulus of the samples showed a maximum decrease, 0.58 MPa.” Please provide the relative decrease in percent so that the reader can better sense the changes.  

Response: We have added relative decrease in percent in the conclusion section.

Research limitations and future research directions should be added to the paper.

Response: We have added limitation and future research direction to the revised manuscript.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents Research on Dynamic Stress-Strain Change Rules of Rubber Particle Mixed Sand. In general, this study is very interesting. I would suggest this paper can be accepted after considering some revisions below

1.     Please highlight the use of rubber particle mixed sand in this study and what is the future perspective in line with the use of rubber particle mixed sand as soil improvement

2.    Authors may add some studies on the use of dynamical test to inspect soil behaviour during dynamic load, below

·       Mase, L. Z., Likitlersuang, S., & Tobita, T. (2019). Cyclic behaviour and liquefaction resistance of Izumio sands in Osaka, Japan. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37(7), 765-774.

·       Mase, L. Z. (2017). Shaking table test of soil liquefaction in Southern Yogyakarta. International Journal of Technology, 8(4), 747-760.

·       Mojtahedzadeh, N., Ghalandarzadeh, A., & Motamed, R. (2022). Experimental evaluation of dynamic characteristics of Firouzkooh sand using cyclic triaxial and bender element tests. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(2), 125-138.

3.       Some Equations fonts are too large. Please revise them accordingly

4.      Authors mentioned that “The sand mixed with rubber particles can decrease the shear stiffness of the soil mass, making full use of the vibration resistance and reduction”. I would suggest authors to explain more on this and correlate this to the previous studies. How is the effectiveness of the materials for large scale use is still needed to be roughly discussed?

5.       Authors should also elaborate the factor influence the performance of sand mixed with rubber particles to dynamic properties. For example, the effect of confining pressure, relative density, grain size and rubber size?

6.  Authors mentioned that the use of material is addressed for subgrade. Therefore, it is important to explain how is the effectiveness of mixed materials implemented in this study for bearing capacity of subgrade especially under dynamic load

Author Response

his paper presents Research on Dynamic Stress-Strain Change Rules of Rubber Particle Mixed Sand. In general, this study is very interesting. I would suggest this paper can be accepted after considering some revisions below

1. Please highlight the use of rubber particle mixed sand in this study and what is the future perspective in line with the use of rubber particle mixed sand as soil improvement

Response: We have highlighted the use of rubber particle mixed sand in the revised draft of our manuscript.

2. Authors may add some studies on the use of dynamical test to inspect soil behaviour during dynamic load, below

• Mase, L. Z., Likitlersuang, S., & Tobita, T. (2019). Cyclic behaviour and liquefaction resistance of Izumio sands in Osaka, Japan. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 37(7), 765-774.
• Mase, L. Z. (2017). Shaking table test of soil liquefaction in Southern Yogyakarta. International Journal of Technology, 8(4), 747-760.
• Mojtahedzadeh, N., Ghalandarzadeh, A., & Motamed, R. (2022). Experimental evaluation of dynamic characteristics of Firouzkooh sand using cyclic triaxial and bender element tests. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(2), 125-138.

Response: We have cited the above references in our revised manuscript.

 

3. Some Equations fonts are too large. Please revise them accordingly

Response: We have resized the font size of the equations throughout the manuscript.

4. Authors mentioned that “The sand mixed with rubber particles can decrease the shear stiffness of the soil mass, making full use of the vibration resistance and reduction”. I would suggest authors to explain more on this and correlate this to the previous studies. How is the effectiveness of the materials for large scale use is still needed to be roughly discussed?

Response: We have added more description and correlate with the previous study.

 

5. Authors should also elaborate the factor influence the performance of sand mixed with rubber particles to dynamic properties. For example, the effect of confining pressure, relative density, grain size and rubber size?

Response: We have explained the factor influence the performance of sand mixed with rubber particles to dynamic properties.

6. Authors mentioned that the use of material is addressed for subgrade. Therefore, it is important to explain how is the effectiveness of mixed materials implemented in this study for bearing capacity of subgrade especially under dynamic load.

Response: We have elaborated the effectiveness of mixed materials implemented in the current study.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have done corrections as per reviewer comments, However, author's have written in comments that Figure 6 and Figure 7 are elaborated in terms of labels. But I can see that there is no modification in the respective figures. I suggest authors do what they have written in their response.

Apart from this, in figures 2 to 5, Please write how the size of the sand particles are measured. Is this a standard size of particles?. Please provide scale.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their comments. On the first question, after careful discussion, we decided not to make changes and maintain the status quo. In the second question, this is the standard value set according to the experimental environment. Finally, thank the reviewers again for their contributions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Some modifications have been made. 

Author Response

Thanks!

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors had addressed the comment.

Author Response

Thanks!