Effects of the Properties of Fines on the Pore Water Pressure Generation Characteristics of Sand–Silt–Clay Mixtures during Cyclic Loading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is very interesting paper on the actual (for geophysics and astrophysics but not only for pure mechanics) sand micromechanics problem with very rigorous / scrupulous argumentation basis and optimal model fitting / approximation. I think, that co beautiful resuls must be published immediatly without any other corrections. Practical actuallity of such works in this time is also associated with destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kakhovka Hydroelectric Station) in Ukraine 6 June 2023 and flooding downstream of the dam breach. Refered work will help identify hydrological and geomechanical risks in sandy and clay steppe regions after flooding.

It is very interesting paper on the actual (for geophysics and astrophysics but not only for pure mechanics) sand micromechanics problem with very rigorous / scrupulous argumentation basis and optimal model fitting / approximation. I think, that co beautiful resuls must be published immediatly without any other corrections. Practical actuallity of such works in this time is also associated with destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kakhovka Hydroelectric Station) in Ukraine 6 June 2023 and flooding downstream of the dam breach. Refered work will help identify hydrological and geomechanical risks in sandy and clay steppe regions after flooding.

Author Response

Point 1:It is very interesting paper on the actual (for geophysics and astrophysics but not only for pure mechanics) sand micromechanics problem with very rigorous / scrupulous argumentation basis and optimal model fitting / approximation. I think, that co beautiful resuls must be published immediatly without any other corrections. Practical actuallity of such works in this time is also associated with destruction of the Kakhovka Dam (Kakhovka Hydroelectric Station) in Ukraine 6 June 2023 and flooding downstream of the dam breach. Refered work will help identify hydrological and geomechanical risks in sandy and clay steppe regions after flooding.

Response:

Thanks for your constructive comment. We also added two references to indicate the application of geomechanical risks in sandy and clay into in-site case.

1. Kokusho T. “Earthquake-induced flow liquefaction in fines-containing sands under initial shear stress by lab tests and its implication in case histories.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2020;130: 105984 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105984
2. Tsai CC, Huang LY, Chen CJ. “Earthquake-induced persistent and instantaneous groundwater variations caused by volumetric strain of soil in Taiwan from 1999 to 2020.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2023;164:107586 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107586

We added also the phrase “Although mixture theory is very complicated, Kokusho and Tsai et al. [37, 38] applied it to a case study in the field.”

Page 2 line 96-97

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

applied sciences

Manuscript ID: 2433811

Effect of plastic properties of the fines on the pressure generation characteristics of fine-grained soils during cyclic loadings

by

Hsiao, Lin

 

REFEREE’S COMMENTS

 

This is an interesting paper on a subject that should be of great interest to many readers. For location of comments, see the belows.

 

1. Title:
2. It could be more concise/compact by keeping the same meaning.
3. Abstract:
4. It is not very usual to use "we, I, you, ..." in a scientific submission.
5. The abstract should be supported quantitatively, rather than using the words like "slowly", "considerably", "closer", ...  
6. Keywords:
7. It would be better to compact the "water pressure generation characteristics during liquefaction".
8. "Preface" should be changed to "Introduction":
9. line 34; a proper definition for the fabric would be required. See the Geotechnique 59 (6), 503-511; https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2009.162.4.193.
10. There are many papers on "fines in soils". The literature review should be strengthened by citing the papers already available in the literature. For example, see the papers Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 124 (6), 479-491; Engineering Geology 164, 36-49; Engineering Geology 89 (3-4), 195-205; Proceedings of International Conference on Problematic Soils 3, 1203-1209; Engineering Geology 192, 154-165; Acta geotechnica slovenica 15 (1), 3-15;  Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000, 77-91; Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11, 1-12; and many others already available in the literature.
11. Last paragraph: The authors should clearly indicate the originality/novelty of her/his research.
12. Tests materials and methods:
13. line 133; refer the Figure 1 here.
14. line 148; "grain size gradation curve"=?
15. Figure 1 does not appear clearly.
16. Table 1; Cd=?
17. The authors are recommended to give out the full name before using its abbreviation.
18. line 169; Figure 1; language of the caption should be corrected.
19. Table 2; Figure 3; "Fines", "Mudstone", "Kaolinite".
20. Figure 3; caption should be shortened.
21. "Results and Discussions":
22. line 340; cannot be read (?), typing mistake.
23. Table 3; "Specimen".
24. Beta parameter should be described in a detailed way.
25. The authors should effectively discuss their finding in the light of the papers already available in the literature. This is particularly very important for a scientific paper.
26. Conclusions:
27. The authors should strengthen the conclusions by referring the quantitative findings.
28. In General:
29. Light-gray-dotted-gridlines would be very for the potential readers in order to follow the changes clearly.
30. The Figures are not seen clearly.
31. Literature review should be extended.
32. Check out the details of the references cited.

 

 

Best regards,

 

-

Author Response

Point 1: Title:

It could be more concise/compact by keeping the same meaning.

Response 1 :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. The title was revised as “Effect of the properties of fines on the water pressure generation characteristics of sand-silt-clay mixtures during cyclic loadings”

Page 1 lines 2-4.

Point 2: Abstract:It is not very usual to use "we, I, you, ..." in a scientific submission.

Response 2:Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We had prevented these words and phrase.

Point 3:The abstract should be supported quantitatively, rather than using the words like "slowly", "considerably", "closer", ...

Response 3 :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We had examined it again and prevent no ambiguous sentence.

We added “In addition, the cyclic stress ratio of specimens containing mudstone (PI = 12.4) and kaolinite (PI = 32.0) fines increased by 1.5-3.0 times more than non-plastic fines if the cyclic number 

chosen was 100.” and “The range of the upper and lower limits of the PWP curves of the specimens with an FC of 30% was smaller that of the limits of the PWP curves of the specimens with an FC of 15%.”

Page 1 lines 18-20.

Page 1 lines 20-22.

Point 4: Keywords:

It would be better to compact the "water pressure generation characteristics during liquefaction"

Response 4 :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We separated two parts “water pressure generation” and “liquefaction”

Page 1 line 29.

Point 5: "Preface" should be changed to "Introduction"

Response 5: 

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We corrected it.

Page 1 lines 3.

Point 6: line 34; a proper definition for the fabric would be required. See the Geotechnique 59 (6), 503-511; https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2009.162.4.193.

Response 6 :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. It is difficult to have the paper in a short time, but we chose another two paper which is published in Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE 1998;124 (6), 479-491 and 2002;128(10):849–59. Prof. Thevanayagam S. had deeply studied the structure and fabrics for sand-silt mixture. We also added “Thevanayagam et al. [1,2] demonstrated that, in soil structure (fabric), fines may significantly influence relevant dynamic and static properties.”

Page 2 lines 43-44.

Point 7 : There are many papers on "fines in soils". The literature review should be strengthened by citing the papers already available in the literature. For example, see the papers Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 124 (6), 479-491; Engineering Geology 164, 36-49; Engineering Geology 89 (3-4), 195-205; Proceedings of International Conference on Problematic Soils 3, 1203-1209; Engineering Geology 192, 154-165; Acta geotechnica slovenica 15 (1), 3-15;  Soil Dynamics and Liquefaction 2000, 77-91; Arabian Journal of Geosciences 11, 1-12; and many others already available in the literature.

Response 7 : 

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already added another 7 papers into the article, including

1. Thevanayagam S, Shenthan T, Mohan S, Liang J. Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE, 2002;128(10):849–59.
2. Cabalar AF, Hasan RA. Compressional behaviour of various size/shape sand–clay mixtures with different pore fluids. Engineering Geology 2013, 164, 36-49.
3. Polito CP, Martin II JR. Effects of nonplastic fines on the liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 2001;127(5):408–15.

4. Xenaki VC, Athanasopoulos GA. 

Liquefaction resistance of sand–silt mixtures: an experimental investigation of the effect of fines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2003;23: 183–194.

5. Monkul MM, Etminan E, Şenol A. Influence ofcoefficient of uniformity and base sand gradation on static liquefaction of loose sands with silt. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2016;89:185-197.
6. Monkul MM, Etminan E, Şenol A. Coupled influence of content, gradation and shape characteristics of silts on static liquefaction of loose silty sands. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2017;101:12–26.
7. Belkhatir M, Arab A, Schanz T, Missoum H, Della N. Laboratory study on the liquefaction resistance of sand-silt mixtures: effect of grading characteristics. Granular Matter 2011;13:599–609

. Please refer to Reference 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 35.

Page 20-22.

Point 8 : Last paragraph: The authors should clearly indicate the originality/novelty of her/his research.

Response 8 : Thanks for remind of the reviewer. In the past, less papers discussed excess pore water pressure subjected to cyclic loadings systematically. We already added and clearly indicated that the contribution in the study. Please refer to “From the discussion of the above literature, it has been found that the past researchers have still reached no agreements regarding plastic and non-plastic fine specimens and the rising trend of pore water pressure under undrained cyclic loading. In addition, specimens cannot successfully complete an entire loading process, mostly likely due to smaller cyclic stress ratios. The purpose of the present study was to collect the results of experiments performed on fines with and without plasticity from the relevant literature. The normalized relationship between PWP ratio and CSR was used to assess the effect of plasticity on PWP generation, and 

model analysis was performed in order to obtain the model parameters. To expand upon previous research, argillaceous soils were mixed with fines with different levels of plasticity and were subjected to cyclic triaxial tests.”

Page 3 line 115-124.

Point 9 : Tests materials and methods:

line 133; refer the Figure 1 here.

Response 9 : 

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We added the phrase “In this study, cyclic triaxial testing was performed on Liugui sandy soil specimens from Kaohsiung, Taiwan. A gradation curve of Liugui coarse aggregates was developed. The particle size distribution curve applied is illustrated in Figure 3. Subsequently, Liugui sand from Kaohsiung, mudstone from Tainan, Taiwan and kaolinite were added at 15% and 30% by weight to the soils as replacement for coarse aggregate.”

Page 6 lines 215-219.

Point 10: line 148; "grain size gradation curve"=?

Response 10 : Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We changed “particle size distribution curve” (Das book, 2010, Lambe & Whitman book, 1979) instead of grain size gradation curve.

Page 6 lines 217.

Point 11 : Figure 1 does not appear clearly.

Response 11 : 

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already correct all the figures. Please see all the figures and especially for Figure 3.

Page 7 lines 241.

Point 12 : Table 1; Cd=?

Response 12 : 

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Cd is coefficient of gradation (Das book, 2010) and depicted in the paragraph.

Please see Table 2.

Page 7 lines 248-249.

Point 13:　The authors are recommended to give out the full name before using its abbreviation.

Response 1３Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We carefully treated all.

Point 1４:line 169; Figure 1; language of the caption should be corrected.

Response 1４ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. The language of the caption of Figure 4 was corrected “The appearances of the three types of fines in photograph.”

Page 7 lines 252.

Point 1５:Table 2; Figure 3; "Fines", "Mudstone", "Kaolinite".

Response 1５ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We corrected and used capitalization in character of 1^st word.

Table 3

Page 8 Page 8 lines 253.

Figure 5 Page 8 line 255

Point 1６:Figure 3; caption should be shortened.

Response 1６ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. caption is shortened as “

Figure 5. The plasticity data, plastic index and liquid limits of three fines”

Page 8 lines 255.

Point 1７:"Results and Discussions":

line 340; cannot be read (?), typing mistake.

Response 1７ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Excuse me, the error “The Ru ¬and normalized N/NL ¬¬¬values are mapped in Figure 8(b).” can be written as “The Ru and normalized N/N_L values are shown in Figure 8(b).”

Page 12 lines 400-401.

Point 1８:Table 3; "Specimen"

Response 1８ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. specimen was corrected as “Specimen” in Table 4.

Page 14 line 450.

Point 1９:Beta parameter should be described in a detailed way.

Response １９ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We've added a one phrase text description “Towhata [49] also described b is an empirical parameter, which is dependent on soil type, effective stress or rate of cyclic loadings. [40,50]”

Page 5 lines 193-195.

Point ２０:The authors should effectively discuss their finding in the light of the papers already　available in the literature. This is particularly very important for a scientific paper.

Response ２０ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already added　

“The results stated above were further analyzed using a mathematical model. This paper systematically uses both the literature and laboratory test data to demonstrate that plastic fines and non-plastic fines have significantly different effects on water pressure generation under cyclic loading conditions, and a mathematical model also demonstrated the same trends. This finding is able to clarify previous unclear arguments. Thus, the model results developed in this study could also provide the field of engineering with a complete advanced calculation requiring analysis only via software.” Please see the paragraph in Abstract

Page 1 lines 22-28.

Point ２１:Conclusions:

The authors should strengthen the conclusions by referring the quantitative findings.

Response ２１ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. e already added

“From the previous literature, it can be seen that researchers have still no agreement regarding plastic and non-plastic fine specimens and the 

rising trend of pore water pressure under cyclic loading. In addition, specimen cannot successfully complete the entire loading process, most likely due to a smaller cyclic stress ratio.” and “his paper systematically used both of the literature and laboratory test data to demonstrate that plastic fines and non-plastic fines display significant differences in water pressure generation under cyclic loading conditions, and a mathematical model also proved the same trend. This finding can clarify previously unclear arguments.” Please see the paragraph in Conclusion.

Page 20 lines 608-611. Page 20 lines 627-631

Point ２２:In General:

Light-gray-dotted-gridlines would be very for the potential readers in order to follow the changes clearly.

Response ２２ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Some are revised.

Please see Figure 3,6,7,11,14 and 15.

Point ２３:The Figures are not seen clearly.

Response ２３ :Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Some are revised.

Point ２４:Literature review should be extended.

Response ２４ :

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We added 12 important papers in it.

Please see reference numbers from 42 papers to 54 papers.

Point ２５:Check out the details of the references cited.

Response ２５ :Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already made confirmation again with Internet. Make sure DOI for each paper.

 

　

 

　

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have presented a study on the effect of fines content on pore pressure during cyclic loading

1. Fig. 1 Can authors mark the effective particle diameter in the figure 1 though it is presented in table 1. It will help readers to understand the types of soil taken for the study.

2. page 4 line 156 - 157 - why have authors classified sand as CL

3. Table 1 - In case of fines content > 12% why have authors given Cu and Cd

4. Please clarify - authors have used Liugui sand, mudstone and kaolinite with different percentages of fines or have they added these soil to coarse aggregates as specified in page 3, lines 135-136 as table 1 gives results with different fines content and table 2 for different types of soil 

5. Table 2 - How can sand be classified as CL-ML. Please check. Sand has silt and clay fines or your soil is sand - silt - clay mixture? 

6. Section 3 - Authors can consider presenting the results of the experimental data first and then move to model & prediction - moving section 3.3 first

7.  Details of Booker model can be moved to methods section. Only the results and analysis can be presented in section 3

8. How many samples were tested in the laboratory? Please tabulate the results before moving on to discussion on normalizing  the data from experiments and literature.

9. Can authors confirm if figures 5a - c are from experimental data? Please improve the quality of the graphs.

10. Can authors provide the probability of error in these graphs

11. Figure 10 shows 4 types of soil used but table 1 and 2 do not reflect this. Please check. 

12. The authors need to restructure the manuscript. Throughout there is no clear presentation of the experimental data and literature data making readability poor.

 

The manuscript needs major restructuring in the way that the data are presented and discussed. 

Author Response

Point １：Fig. 1 Can authors mark the effective particle diameter in the figure 1 though it is presented in table 1. It will help readers to understand the types of soil taken for the study.

Response１：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. To easy watch the effective particle size, we added upper line to distinguish Gravel, Coarse Sand, Fine Sand and Silt or Clay in the Figure.

Please see Figure 3. In Page 7 line 241.

Point ２：page 4 line 156 - 157 - why have authors classified sand as CL

Response２：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We revised “The USCS classifications of Liugui sand, Mudstone fines, and Kaolinite were CL-ML, CL and CH with respective to fines content.”

Page 6 lines 237-239.

Point ３：Table 1 - In case of fines content > 12% why have authors given Cu and Cd．

Response３：Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We will more clear describe fines content not sands. Because the testing soils are not natural soils, we used Cu and Cd to describe soil/silt/clay particle distribution according to the suggestion of references [9-11] Xenaki and Athanasopoulos, Monkul et al.

Point ４：Please clarify - authors have used Liugui sand, mudstone and kaolinite with different percentages of fines or have they added these soil to coarse aggregates as specified in page 3, lines 135-136 as table 1 gives results　with different fines content and table 2 for different types of soil 

Response４：Thanks for this comment and suggestion. There is a mistake. We corrected “Subsequently, Liugui sand from Kaohsiung, mudstone from Tainan, Taiwan and kaolinite were added at 15% and 30% by　weight to the soils as replacement for coarse aggregate.”

Page 6 lines 217-219.

Point ５：Table 2 - How can sand be classified as CL-ML. Please check. Sand has silt and clay fines or your soil is sand - silt - clay mixture? 

Response５：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Liugui sands is a special type of sands, which can be long-term weathered and sediment from upstream shale rock of Central Mountain in Taiwan according to our past study experience. When fines content increase the soils become a little clay-soils based on the soil plasticity they naturally owned.

Please refer to the paper we had wrote and detailed description in that paper.

Page 21 lines 657-658.

Point ６：

Section 3 - Authors can consider presenting the results of the experimental data first and then move to model & prediction - moving section 3.3 first

Response６：Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already corrected and reconstruct the article content in sequence. Model & prediction was moved to “Method & materials” in Sec. 2. It’s more easy to read for Section 3. “Results and discussions”.

Point ７：Details of Booker model can be moved to methods section. Only the results and analysis can be presented in section 3．

Response７：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already adjusted Booker-model into “2.2. Booker et al. model (1976)” in “2. Study methods and tests materials”.

Page 5 lines 186-211.

Point ８：How many samples were tested in the laboratory? Please tabulate the results before moving on to discussion on normalizing the data from experiments and literature.　

Response８：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We added a Table “Table 1 Detained description of the databases used in the study”.

Page 4 lines 183-184.

Point９：Can authors confirm if figures 5a - c are from experimental data? Please improve the quality of the graphs. 

Response９：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. They were obtained with the works of my and other authors. quality of the graphs already improved as the followings.

Page 10 line 353.

Point１０：Can authors provide the probability of error in these graphs

Response１０：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Beside the data obtained carefully from literature paper, we conducted all the specimen very strictly and caution ally. In the past, we accumulated many experience for operation ability to perform cyclic triaxial test.

Hence the results shown as below were not easy to be finished, we finally conducted all.

Page 10 line 353.

Page 13 line 420.

Page 15 line 497.

Page 17 line 546.

Point１１：Figure 10 shows 4 types of soil used but table 1 and 2 do not reflect this. Please check. 

Response１１：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. Please refer to last four type of specimen of Sand-x, S-FCx, M-FC-x and K-FCx respectively in Table 1. Hence it is all right.

Page 14 line 450.

Point１２：The authors need to restructure the manuscript. Throughout there is no clear presentation of the experimental data and literature data making readability poor．

Response１２：Thanks for this comment and suggestion. In order to improve the readability, we already restructured the manuscript, and specially to Section 2 and 3. In addition, we use Figure 1 with a flowchart of the step-by-step interpretation process by 

experimental works as well as using research and experimental work from literature.

Page 3-6 Lines 132-211

Page 4 Lines 180-181

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

·       Abstract

1. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. This section isn't clear. The authors just collecting some ideas. Please, try to improve this section by highlighting the research gap and the novelty of this work. Also, try to lead the author smoothly to your point.

·       Introduction

1.     This journal is committed to engaging with a wider public in order to promote the potential benefits of cutting-edge engineering research. Please describe in specific terms the potential impact of your research work and methodology involved on the wider public. - How will your work make a difference?

2.     Make sure to include the Contribution to the field. How does this paper advance the current knowledge?

3.     What is the originality of the work? And What is new in your work that makes a difference in the body of knowledge? What has been done that goes beyond the existing research?

4.     The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance the theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument.

·       Methodology

A flowchart should be added to the article to show the data collection methodology. The authors followed a scientific and acceptable approach; however, they fail in presenting their steps in a clear way. I recommend a second look at this section and deleting unnecessary details.

·       Conclusion:

 

Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, and limitations, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Avoid writing small sentences. This breaks the flow of the readers. 

Some sections have sentences, which need urgent references, as you are making a statement without any referred literature. For example, in line 33.

Fig. 2 mentions the materials used, but they can be given further subparts stating which image is which material? 

Caption for Fig. 3 is not appropraite, keep it clear. 

 

At present, this manuscript needs to have a serious revision. Please check with follow co-authors, before submitting. The work has a potential but the language check is must.

Author Response

Abstract

Point１：The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. This section isn't clear. The authors just collecting some ideas. Please, try to improve this section by highlighting the research gap and the novelty of this work. Also, try to lead the author smoothly to your point.

 Response１：

Thanks for this suggestion. We already improve the statement as new manuscript. We added “The results stated above were further analyzed using a mathematical model. This paper systematically uses both the literature and laboratory test data to demonstrate that plastic fines and non-plastic fines have significantly different effects on water pressure generation under cyclic loading conditions, and a mathematical model also demonstrated the same trends. This finding is able to clarify previous unclear arguments. Thus, the model results developed in this study could also provide the field of engineering with a complete advanced calculation requiring analysis only via software.”

Page 1 lines 23-28.

Introduction

Point ２：This journal is committed to engaging with a wider public in order to promote the potential benefits of cutting-edge engineering research. Please describe in specific terms the potential impact of your research work and methodology involved on the wider public. - How will your work make a difference?

Response２：

Thanks for your constructive comment. We also added 2 references about the application of geomechanical risks in sandy and clay. I think it is no differences between our works and the wider public. When time is right, the related theory will be developed in the wider public. “From the discussion of above literature, it is found that the past researchers still have no agreements for plastic and non-plastic fine specimens about the rising trend of pore water pressure under the undrained cyclic loading. In addition, the specimen can’t successfully complete the entire loading process probably due to smaller cyclic stress ratio. The purpose of the present study was to collect the results of experiments performed on fines with and without plasticity from the relevant literature.” and “Although mixture theory is very complicated, Kokusho and Tsai et al. [37, 38] applied it to a case study in the field.”

Page 3 lines 96-97.

Point３：Make sure to include the Contribution to the field. How does this paper advance the current knowledge?

Response３：“From the discussion of above literature, it is found that the past researchers still have no agreements for plastic and non-plastic fine specimens about the rising trend of pore water pressure under the undrained cyclic　loading. In addition, the specimen can’t successfully complete the entire loading process probably due to smaller cyclic stress ratio.” And “This paper systematically uses both of literature and laboratory test data to find that plastic fines and non-plastic fines will have great differences on water pressure generation under cyclic loading conditions, and mathematical model also provided the same trend. This finding can clarify previous unclear arguments.” and we note “Meantime model results developed in the study could also provide engineering field to complete advanced calculation when they have to analyze by using software.” In which it can be contributed to the field in the future.

 Page 3 lines 115-119; Page 1 lines 26-28.  　

Point４：What is the originality of the work? And What is new in your work that makes a difference in the body of knowledge? What has been done that goes beyond the existing research?

Response４：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion.

“The results indicated that under cyclic loading, the pore water pressure (PWP) ratios of the clean sands increased slowly, then stagnated, and finally accelerated until initial liquefaction, whereas those of the plastic soils containing fines with a plastic index (PI) value of >5 increased sharply in the initial stage. In addition, the cyclic stress ratio of specimen containing mudstone (PI = 12.4) and kaolinite (PI = 32.0) fines increased 1.5-3.0 times than non-plastic fines if cyclic number is chosen as 100. The range of upper and lower limits of the PWP curves of the specimens with an FC of 30% were smaller to each other than were those of the PWP curve of the specimens with an FC of 15%. The results stated above were further analyzed using a mathematic model.”

Page 1 lines 15-28.

Point ５：The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance the theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument.

Response５：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already improved “Introduction” please refer to the followings. As for our contribution, we improved the last paragraph in Introduction.

Pages 1-4, lines 209-211.

Methodology

Point ６：A flowchart should be added to the article to show the data collection methodology. The authors followed a scientific and acceptable approach; however, they fail in presenting their steps in a clear way. I recommend a second look at this section and deleting unnecessary details.

Response６：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We also added some contents in Sec. 2 to describe study methodology with a flowchart. Figure 1, the flowchart of interpreting step-step work by literatures and experiment, also was added in. Meantime, we also used Table 1 to explain detained description of the databases used in the study

Pages 3-4 lines 133-185.

Conclusion:

Point７：Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, and limitations, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Response７：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We made many efforts to stress our contributions such as “From the previous literature, it can be seen that researchers have still no agreement regarding plastic and non-plastic fine specimens and the rising trend of pore water pressure under cyclic loading. In addition, specimen cannot successfully complete the entire loading process, most likely due to a smaller cyclic stress ratio.” And “Finally, all the results were reanalyzed using the model developed by Booker et al. (1976), according to which the β parameters for plastic and non-plastic soils should be 20-250 and 0.45-2, respectively. This paper systematically used both of the literature and laboratory test data to demonstrate that plastic fines and non-plastic fines display significant differences in water pressure generation under cyclic loading conditions, and a mathematical model also proved the same trend. This finding can clarify previously unclear arguments.”

Page 20 lines 608- 634.

Point ８：Avoid writing small sentences. This breaks the flow of the readers. 

Response８：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We avoid writing small sentence.

Page 10 lines 323-324.

Point９：Some sections have sentences, which need urgent references, as you are making a statement without any referred literature. For example, in line 33.

Response９：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion.

“Soil structure (fabric) may be related to the properties of fines.” was deleted. We used the works from Thevanayagam et al. [1,2] to demonstrate that, in soil structure (fabric), fines may significantly influence relevant dynamic and static properties.

Page 2 lines 43-344.

Point １０：Fig. 2 mentions the materials used, but they can be given further subparts stating which image is which material? 

Response１０：

Thanks for this comment. We revised and added subparts to state different materials in picture.

Please see Figure 4. In Page 7 line 251. 

Point１１：Caption for Fig. 3 is not appropriate, keep it clear.

Response１１：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We have revised it. “Figure 5. The plasticity data, plastic index and liquid limits of the three fines”

Page 8 line 255.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

ID: applsci-2433811

The authors have investigated the effect of fine content on pore water pressure and finally liquefaction via the experimental method. The result of the study can be used in liquefaction analysis. However, the manuscript is necessary to address the following comments.

1-      The focus of the presented study is on the investigation of the change in the fine content on the pore water pressure and finally, the liquefaction, which is not reflected in the title of the manuscript, and the title of the manuscript does not reflect the achievements of the study. It should be correct.

2-      In professional articles, references are not provided in the abstract. It is necessary to change the text in such a way that the reference is not needed in the abstract.

3-      The first phrase provided as a keyword (i.e., water pressure generation characteristics during liquefaction ) is very large and not common. It should be divided into two or three parts.

4-      Usually, gamma notation is used instead of beta for unit weight (see line 143).

5-      The number of used cycles is equivalent to what earthquake magnitude?

6-      The preliminary information of the experiments should be presented in a Table, including the Dry density, and the amount of considered surcharge.

7-      The obtained results show that with the increase in the percentage of fine content, the liquefaction decreases. It will be better as the percentage of fine content is specified in terms of percentage, and the amount of reduction in liquefaction also be specified in terms of percentage (in Abstract and Conclusion).

8-      The legend related to Figure 5A is not clear.

9-      How do the authors validate the obtained results in Figure 9?

10-  The study is related to investigating the effect of fine content on pore water pressure and finally liquefaction. The following articles which assessed these topics, especially in nonhomogenous soil can be used to update references. Analytical reliability assessment of liquefaction potential based on cone penetration test results (2014), Reliability analysis of static liquefaction of loose sand using the random finite element method, (2015), An analytical approach to probabilistic modeling of liquefaction based on shear wave velocity (2019)

Author Response

The authors have investigated the effect of fine content on pore water pressure and finally liquefaction via the experimental method. The result of the study can be used in liquefaction analysis. However, the manuscript is necessary to address the following comments.

Response：Thanks for your comments.

Point １：The focus of the presented study is on the investigation of the change in the fine content on the pore water　pressure and finally, the liquefaction, which is not reflected in the title of the manuscript, and the title of the manuscript does not reflect the achievements of the study. It should be correct.

Response１：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We revised the Title name as “Effect of the fines on the pressure generation characteristics of sand-silt-clay mixtures during cyclic loadings” which will display the clay fines and non-clay fines effects for achievement of the article.

Page 1 lines 2-4.

Point２：In professional articles, references are not provided in the abstract. It is necessary to change the text in such a way that the reference is not needed in the abstract.

Response２：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We already delete Booker name, but emphasis it is a famous mathematical model.

Page 1 lines 25-26

Point３：The first phrase provided as a keyword (i.e., water pressure generation characteristics during liquefaction) is very large and not common. It should be divided into two or three parts.

Response３：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We separated into two parts including “water pressure generation” and “liquefaction”.

Page 1 line 29

Point ４：Usually, gamma notation is used instead of beta for unit weight (see line 143).

Response４：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. It’s wrong, and corrected it.

Page 6 lines 231

Point５：The number of used cycles is equivalent to what earthquake magnitude?

Response５：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. According Seed research, the cyclic number equaling to 15 represents Earthquake Magnitude 7.5. We also added “Even though the cyclic number was limited to 10-20 when an earthquake occurred, this study is still important for sand-silt-clay mixtures via high cyclic numbers.” They are inserted into the last paragraph in Section 3.3.1 Results of cyclic triaxial tests

Page 15 lines 494-495.

Point ６：The preliminary information of the experiments should be presented in a　Table, including the Dry density, and the amount of considered surcharge.

Response６：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We used a fixed dry　soil unit weight of ϒ_d = 16.58 kN/m³ and fines content is 15, 30% respectively. They can be seen as Table 1 and 2.

Page 4 line 184, Page 7 line 249.

Point７：The obtained results show that with the increase in the percentage of fine content, the liquefaction decreases. It will be better as the percentage of fine content is specified in terms of percentage, and the amount of reduction in liquefaction also be specified in terms of percentage (in Abstract and Conclusion).

Response７：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. In abstract, we added a phrase “In addition, the cyclic stress ratio of specimens containing mudstone (PI = 12.4) and kaolinite (PI = 32.0) fines increased by 1.5-3.0 times more than non-plastic fines if the cyclic number chosen was 100.” And it is very important that they can be shown as the following.

Page 1 lines 18-20.

Point８：The legend related to Figure 5A is not clear.

Response８：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. The legend in figure 6A already was cleared.

Page 11 lines 354.

Point ９：How do the authors validate the obtained results in Figure 9?

Response９：

Thanks for this comment and suggestion. We had repeatedly conducted a series of tests for the experimental works many years. Hence the QC for specimen is believed as very perfect for Figure 10. So we always have a lot of confidences in operating cyclic triaxial tests.

Page 15 line 497.

Point １０：The study is related to investigating the effect of fine content on pore water pressure and finally liquefaction. The following articles which assessed these topics, especially in nonhomogenous soil can be used to update references. Analytical reliability assessment of liquefaction potential based on cone penetration test results (2014), Reliability analysis of static liquefaction of loose sand using the random finite element method, (2015), An analytical approach to probabilistic modeling of liquefaction based on shear wave velocity (2019)

Response１０：Thanks for this comment and suggestion. A paper “An analytical approach to probabilistic modeling of liquefaction based on shear wave velocity (2019)” was added.

39. Johari A, Khodaparast AR, Javadi AA. An Analytical Approach to Probabilistic Modeling of Liquefaction Based on Shear Wave Velocity. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineeringvolume43, pages263–275 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-018-0163-7, which can indicate the importance of soil uncertainty.

We added also “Johari et al. [36] presented an analysis and the probabilistic modeling of liquefaction, which in the meantime, has also been applied to parameter quality.”

Page 2 lines 94-96.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

-

-

Author Response

Point: (x) Minor editing of the English language required

Response : Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We also revised English language editing with the assistance of the MDPI English center. Please see English-edited-68032.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for making the right changes. I am happy to see the revised manuscript. No more comments from my side.

Author Response

Point : Thanks for making the right changes. I am happy to see the revised manuscript. No more comments from my side.

Response: Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The current version of the article is acceptable.

Author Response

Point  : The current version of the article is acceptable.

Response : Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx