Experimental Study on Disintegration of Guilin Red Clay
, Wei-Wei Xiao 1,*, Fu-Kang Ling 3 and Gang Peng 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript generally consistent with with the theme of this special issue. The presentation content is appropriate, and the testing method is clearly introduced. However, there is some confusing statement and unclear description of testing results. In addition, the reference must need to be modified by adding the relevant publications. For details, please refer to the attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents the influence of water absorption and temperature on the disintegration of Guilin Red Clay, and a model. It also concluded that the disintegration of model is not sensitive to temperature, and the water content is the main factor leading to the soil collapse. However, the parameters for excluding the influence of temperature on the disintegration of disintegration based on the experimental results are not in place (or the influence of negligible temperature factors under limited conditions is not clearly stated), which leads to the lack of illustration in the conclusion of the influence of water absorption. The idea of the construction of the theoretical model in this paper is novel, which is the greatest contribution of this paper. The following questions need to be considered before acceptance:
1. The presentation of the existing experiment in the introduction part is sufficient, but it is still lack of summary. It does not combine the existing literature to analyze and explain the necessity or research significance of this experiment. This should be reviewed.
2. The referneces and citation in the paper should be double checked.
3. The expression of the same object in the article should be consistent to avoid ambiguity
4. The experimental objects and steps should be particularly detailed, especially for those that will be used when building the model
5. The following papers might be helpful to revise the manuscript: 1) Suitability charts to select stabilizer for excavated soils and rocks (ESR). 2) Water retention curve of GCLs using a modified sample holder in a chilled-mirror dew-point device. 3) Effect of water salinity on the water retention curve of geosynthetic clay liners
1. What is the main question addressed by the research? The study aims to explore the disintegration char-14 acteristics of red clay under different water content and temperature, and analyzes the influence of microstructure on disintegration.2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Yes.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? The results of the study showed that the disintegration amount decreased with 16 the increase of water content; The disintegration of red clay is not sensitive to temperature in the 17 natural climate range (0 ~ 60 ℃); Water absorption can increase the disintegration rate and amount 18 of red clay. Through comprehensive analysis, water content is the main factor affecting soil disinte-19 gration.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? N/A 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Yes
6. Are the references appropriate? The reference should be double checked.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, red clay was made into 10 samples with different water contents, and the disintegration test was carried out under the self-made test instrument. The disintegration time curve was modified with the water absorption test results, and the disintegration characteristics of red clay under different water contents and temperatures were studied. Following comments are advised to be considered before acceptance:
1. It is recommended that the author check the format of Table 1 and Table 2, and avoid a line occupied by brackets and letters. And whether "GS","wp" and "wl " should be "GS","
" and "
".The format of Figure 2 is different from that of Figure 4. The horizontal coordinate units in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 are not consistent. Please check and modify the format of the full text.
2. The author mentions in the abstract that "The disintegration of red clay is not sensitive to temperature in the natural climate range (0 ~ 60℃) ". As can be seen from Figure 5 and Figure 6, when the temperature is higher than 30℃, the temperature has a great influence on the disintegration of red clay. Please explain this.
3. The author establishes "pore exhaust disintegration model" in Section 3.2, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned later.
4. Some references are formatted incorrectly, such as "Li Shanmei et al. effect of acid rain on the integration of removed red clay[m] American Society of civil engineers,: 110-118" and "Sun Yinlei et al. influences of different modifiers on the differentiation of improved granite residual soil under wet and dry cycles[j] International Journal of mining science and technology, 2022, 32 (4): 831-845". Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
5. In Section 3.2, please correct the symbol interpretation sections of 
and 
. Why is formula 9 after formula 13? Please modify it.
6. The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
7. Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: Introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion. If possible, abstract could be more informative by providing some quantitative results.
8. The conclusion is too long. The authors should add some quantitative analysis, such as how much "water absorption" increased the disintegration rate of red clay
9. The citation of the article is very confusing for me. What else does the reference [20] mean?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
I read the author's research on the disintegration of red clay. I find the whole research quite valuable however I have a few critical comments.
First of all, the editorial layout, please keep an eye on descriptions, citations, fonts, units, chemical idex, etc. All subsections should be capitalized, citations should be in accordance with the instructions. Table 1 should have a revised description and layout. Lines 97-102, this description is not clear. Is this a description of the device? Line 158 this sentece is not necessary, unit should be inserted into the formula. Line 267 - hour symbol - lowercase h. Table 2 - description should be revised. Line 312 - citation of figures 5 and 6 should be before figures. Figure 14, description is repeated. Line 428, change fonts. Lines 451, 454, improve chemical indexes.
Substantive comments:
The authors contradict each other; section 4.2 says that an increase in water content causes the clay to break down more slowly. Meanwhile, in section 4.3, line 344 formulates the opposite conclusion. In addition, no reference was made at all to the 60-degree temperature (Figure 6).
Section 4.5 - In my opinion, karst phenomena involve carbonate minerals, calcite, dolomite which dissolve in an aqueous environment. I believe that the karst of clay is an incorrect statement
Section 5.1 The authors confuse chemical composition with mineral composition. Salts are not oxides - magnesium oxide is poorly soluble in cold water, but already its chloride or sulfate is. What are the anions in these compounds? How to know what red clay contains, authors did not show phase compositions. How do you know that calcium is in the form of oxide and not carbonate or silicate? (line 458)
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
-
The authors have completed most of the revisions according to the review opinions.
-
However, the revision of the reference section is still missing some important publications.
-
I think it can be accepted with minor modifications.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunatelly, authors did not fullly address the comments in the last review. The major problem of the manuscript is the writing, especially the incorrect use of reference, eventhough authors did a careful review. Thus, I would like to give the authors second chance .
1. Point five in the last review was not address. I could not find amendment in the manuscript.
2. For point 1, what is " indoor model tests"？The granite soil seems no help with this study, which is red clay? Have you checked if other models suits the Guilin clay in this study.
3. For point 2 in the last review, the reference should be double checked again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be accept in the current version.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
After taking into account the comments and suggestions, I recommend the article for publication
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors address the comments. The paper can be considered for publication
