Mechanical Characteristics and Particle Breakage of Calcareous Sand under Quasi-One-Dimensional Impact Load
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The study evaluates the mechanical properties of calcareous sand using the split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) tests under high strain rate. Mechanical properties of the calcareous sand are important for the geotechnical design of marine infrastructure used in the exploitation of marine resources. Advanced laboratory equipment (a high-resolution innovative lab X-ray diffractometer) and analysis software were used to enhance the accuracy of the results.
It would be of much value if the authors can highlight the usefulness of their results by comparing the laboratory results with a practical marine infrastructure performance observations, illustrating how their results can be practically implemented in the actual field, together with the lab results to field results scaling.
The following statement in the conclusion seems to be an oxymoron and needs further clarification, at least for the readers of the Journal ‘In the SHPB tests, the water content of calcareous sand has little influence on the stress‒strain curve, but whether there is water in the sample will make a specific difference on the stress‒strain curve. There is a functional link between the relative fragmentation rate Br* and water content, and the degree of particle crushing decreases as the water content rises’. This is because the authors put an argument that water content of calcareous sand has insignificant influence on the stress-strain curve and immediately after this, argue for the opposite.
While the one-dimensional approach using the SHPB tests is plausible, it would be valuable for the authors to include a brief comment on how the results would differ if traditional triaxial tests for soil properties are used in the evaluation of the mechanical properties of the calcareous sand. Comment on why the SHPB tests are more preferable to the traditional triaxial tests.
The paper is well written and well structured, with comprehensive coverage of key technical aspects (background studies, description of methods, results, and discussion). The English Language is easier to follow.
The English Language is easier to follow.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Review in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. There is no need for the words "study on" in the title of the article.
2. One of the most important characteristics of calcareous sand is particle breakage. Why is this significant? Please provide reasons.
3. What role do these experiments play in real-world applications? Why is this study important? Additionally, include a concise statement in the abstract to highlight the study's novelty.
4. The introduction section, which covers the literature, is not appropriately written, potentially reflecting a research gap in the study. Incorporate literature relevant to the experiments and discuss the results of these tests and their practical applications.
5. Present the experimental evidence from Table 1.
6. Ensure that the descriptions of figures and tables are comprehensive enough to be self-explanatory.
7. The authors conducted basic tests and compiled the results in tables and graphs. Please discuss the results in relation to existing literature and highlight notable findings.
8. What makes your study special? Refer to your first conclusion. Such behaviors are typically general results of stress-strain curves.
Avoid long sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Review in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have made significant efforts to revise the manuscript; however, further work is required. They should refrain from making assumptions and instead conduct a thorough literature review. Additionally, it is essential for the authors to discuss the significant results of the study. Furthermore, the conclusion should be concise and based solely on the results of this study.
Fine, only minor checking
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I did not get answers to the most important questions from the previous review. No answers to:
In this situation, the tests should be repeated. If the results are repeated, some interpretation of this should be given. In view of the above, I expect some interpretation of this phenomenon.
Moreover:
l. 186 and other is "Formula" should be "formula"
l. 281 the word "formula" is repeated too often
l. 370 and 371 "Lade et al. [34]" is repeated
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
.
.
Author Response
.
Round 4
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The authors focused on the technical aspects of data processing rather than analyzing the physical phenomena occurring during the compression process.
The variability of the Br* parameter over the entire range w is almost the same as the value of a (see Figure). This means that this point lies outside the acceptable range of variability of 95% (e.g., John R., Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements). Since the authors repeated the tests many times for dry samples and obtained comparable results, the reason for such results must be different. Maybe for larger sand fractions the linear model does not reflect the actual behavior of the sand. The article should include an analysis of this discrepancy.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
