Microstructural Transformations and Prediction Models of an Expansive Soil Subjected to Simulated Rainfall Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research on the microstructural transformations of expansive soil under simulated rainfall conditions. The authors utilized nuclear magnetic resonance techniques to examine changes in pore size distribution. The study involved analyzing the impact of various rainfall intensities and durations on the soil's porous structure. Logistic models were employed to quantify changes in dominant pore sizes and porosity based on rainfall parameters.

The authors have provided a detailed description of their research and presented their findings; however, it would be beneficial to include explanations or comments regarding the following issues in the article:

1)     In the abstract, the authors utilized the abbreviation "LogisticCum". It would be advisable to use the full term for the first instance, as not every reader may be familiar with this term.

2)     Lines 116, 125, 133, and 136 contain references to the incorrect figure. It should be Figure 2.

3)     Editorial note: Equations should be formatted so that there is a space before and after them. Currently, the text lacks clarity.

4)     On page 8, the authors state that accurately determining the relationship between rainfall parameters and pore characteristics would aid in simulating the evolution and stabilization processes of pore structures. This sentence is somewhat misleading. Haven't the authors been working on this already? What results do the authors expect, and do they plan to conduct such more detailed studies?

5)     Line 262 - perhaps it would be worth referring to literature containing a description of the Stirling model? Are the authors confident that this relatively simple model is sufficient? Are the observed changes smooth enough to apply it? Have the authors attempted to use another model?

6)     Line 285 - Perhaps it would be beneficial to include a reference to the literature here as well?

7)     The authors have not emphasized enough in the article what exactly constitutes the novelty in this research. What is new compared to what has already been described in the literature. Please also significantly supplement the conclusions to highlight what the observed changes influence. What is their effect?

8)     The authors also stated that further research should encompass a broader range of rainfall patterns. What specific patterns do the authors propose to investigate? And what results do the authors expect to obtain? Do they anticipate that the conducted research is incomplete and that there will be changes in the conclusions?

9)     Did the authors consider the influence of soil mineral content on microstructure under rainfall conditions? Do they anticipate significant changes in the obtained results as a result of variations in soil mineral composition?

10) Did the authors consider differences in the soil microstructure response depending on the season or climate of the region? This could potentially impact the research outcomes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is clearly written and well structured. It falls within the scope of the Water journal and may be relevant for the target audience of the journal. It presents updated references and recent state-of-the-art developments. The methodology has been described to an adequate level of detail as for it to be reproducible. Overall, figures, tables, images, and schemes are appropriate, except for small improvements suggested below. The draw conclusions are consistent with the data and evidence presented. After an objective evaluation, I can conclude that the manuscript can be published in the Water journal after minor revisions:

·         Improve the use of acronyms in the manuscript. In line 70, define SEM and only define once (the first time it is used) NMR in the body of the manuscript, currently it is being defined in several sections. Follow the acronym guidance provided in the “Instructions for Authors”.

·         With regards to Table 1, Where these values obtained from a single sample? if so, they are not statistically representative, and this should be highlighted in the limitations section of the manuscript. If these represent mean values, this should be indicated, and standard deviation should be reported as well.

·         In line 153, I believe there is a typo on the units reported for precipitation. Please double check this and fix as required.

·         For figures 5, 6, 7, and 8, change the "small middle hole" tick mark label to “mesoporous” as defined by the cited references, increase font size of data point labels and the overall image definition quality.

·         Provide adequate references for

o   The Stirling model: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00804.x

o   The LogisticCum: I could not find the original work.

·         In lines 265 and 266, how do D and t are incorporated in eq 4?

·         For figures 11 and 14, increase the overall image definition quality.

·         For figure 12, change the label of the legend “drizzle” for “light rain”, be consistent with the definitions of the parameter level that you described in the text body.

·         In line 349, could you please provide further information about your claims? Are there any experimental technologies that would allow to see such structure as described in your discussion?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have thoroughly answered my questions. I recommend the article for publication.