Constitutive Relationship Proposition of Marine Soft Soil in Korea Using Finite Strain Consolidation Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text “Constitutive Relationship Proposition of Marine Clay in Korea using Finite Strain Consolidation Theory” authors: Sanghyun Jun and Hyuk Jae Kwon is interesting.

 

Title

Check the silt and clay content in all samples and then choose if the title of article will be marine clay, marine mud or marine sediment. See comments for 2.2.3.

 

1. Introduction

In fourth paragraph the last sentence: The back analysis is carried out at a restricted research institute in Korea. –belongs to methods

At the end of introduction authors must emphasize the thesis of this paper and of course in conclusion the answer must be written.

2.1. Method of analysis – it will be better if authors rename this chapter in 2. Methods.

Please describe what is clay!!!!! Explain which sieve were used?

In this chapter belongs description of investigated area – what authors write, and used methods description. Unfortunately, authors describe only constant rate of the strain consolidation test followed ASTM D4186-06 and constant rate of strain. It will be welcome if authors mentioned all used methods as well soil classification system. One sentence or reference for each of them is enough.

According to my opinion chapter 3. Relationships between void-effective and stress-permeability, belongs to methods, except table 2 which represents Results.

 

2.2. Characteristics of dredged soil - it belongs to Results (Results and discussion).

2.2.1. Busan region

Sentence: The specific gravity, plastic limit, liquid limit, plastic index, and activity of clay are 2.718, 28.97%, 60.74%, 31.77, and 1.63, respectively. - For other two regions authors give range of values with average values. Please do this for Busan region too. Can we see raw values in Table 2?

2.2.2. Gwangyang region

First sentence: … has the specific gravity, plastic limit …., as shown in Figure 3. Can we see that on Figure 3? Can we see that in Table 2?  

#200 sieve and in 2.2.3. No.200 sieve – is not the same. Please insert the unit (mm or µm?)

Sentence: The dredged soil contained more fine particle clay than the Gwangyang region dredged soil as per the result of the plasticity, passing percentage of #200 sieve, and clay particle content. – it is not clear, please rewrite.

2.2.3. Incheon region

Please insert after first sentence in parenthesis Table 2.

Sentence: According to the sieve analysis test, the sand particle content (less than the No.200 sieve), silt particle content, and clay particle content are 4.59–8.78%, 79.38–84.41%, and 10.79– 14.42%, respectively. –

Did authors explain the mining of sand, silt and clay particle? (Atteberg, Wenthworth or other classification?) Which sieve authors used?

Did the authors make analysis for all samples (23)? If yes, then use for explanation in 2.2.2. second paragraph, last sentence.

Fine particles and clay – is this the same for authors or not? If yes it will be better if authors use fine particles or maybe mud.

In Incheon region prevails silt particles (79.38–84.41%) according mentioned sentence!!! What is in other area?

Or maybe authors used only clay particles for analysis??

In chapter 2.2.1., 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. named samples H marine clay when LL ≥ 30%, and L marine clay when LL < 30% using the criteria of liquid limit (LL = 30%). Way they mentioned values of LL=60% in chapter 2.2.1. and 2.2.2? See table 2! Check it!!! See conclusion second paragraph.

 

4.1. Representative constitutive relationship equation for each region

It would be desirable if authors compare obtained values.

On Figures 8-13 in explanation mentioned the mining of darker line.

Check abbreviation ic-Lclay or ic-L-clay

Table 3. check the e and k values (they are the same for all) is this average values or something else? If this values were mentioned in text insert table 3 in parenthesis.

4.2. Comparison with precedent studies

At the end of last sentence in first paragraph add clay

 

Conclusion

It would be desirable if authors underline their results.

That is, this is - check

References

It would be desirable if authors insert one recent reference (2019 or 2020)

Author Response

please find an attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is more of an experimental work with an aim to propose relationships. I expected more experimental data, through evaluation of experimental data, comprehensive literature review and a critical discussion of results. All these aspects need to be addressed properly.

Below I give specific comments

• Sampling locations is given in Table 1. However, this information should also be given with map
• Proper definitions need to be given with formula for example for compression index (Cc) and permeability change index (Ck)
• Shall “Plastic index” in the figures be replaced by “Plasticity index (%)” ?
• A lot of time it is used just “void” and this should be replaced by “void ratio”. Also replace “stress” by “effective stress” whenever that is the case.
• Why different properties for CRS and IL? What was the rate used in CRS? The load durations between increment in IL? Present the creep parameters interpreted from IL?
• It is not clear what is meant by “The consolidation properties observed during the CRS test are slightly higher than those observed during the IL test because the reflected slopes of e-logσ’ and e-log k increased as high voids.”. Is this related to higher strain rate in CRS than IL? Please elaborate this sentence and explain why exactly the observed differences come.
• Related to above comment - show stress-strain plots from CRS and IL together – do this also for the permeability results with void ratio.
• Why is liquid limit used for plotting with the consolidation properties of the Busan region? Why only with particularly this index parameter? What about all other index if it has to be index properties? Other literature supporting this?
• clays as per the liquid limit are shown in Figure 2.
• In the figure, it is used “Oedometer” and “CRS”. This is not correct as CRS is also oedometer with different procedure. The correct way to differentiate would be “IL” and “CRS”. So correct this on the figures and the text when applicable.
• Equation (1) assumes that the void ratio changes due to change in effective stress only? What about time component or creep deformations?
• The three “reasons” given for using equation 1 and 2 are less relevant or need to be elaborated with some reference and better English to make a better sense.
• “analysis” in title for 3.2 needs to be replaced by “back analysis”
• Figure 7 needs to be elaborated better. For example – what is meant by “Numerical analysis for self-weight consolidation test conditions Comparison”? Explain this in detail and also with reference if available.
• There is a big scatter in Fig 8a. and the chosen representative line deviates significantly especially from bs-d and bs-b. This need to be addressed/discussed the implication. On other case Fig 12a given an excellent fit. So there must be varying level of fit and the suitability of the formulation thus needs to scrutinized.
• Section 4 needs to be discussing the trends in better details, explaining deviations and so on. What is given is just description of what is already visible in the figures.
• First sentence in section 4.2 says “…similar physical properties” – in what sense? Which properties? This needs elaboration.
• Conclusion second paragraph – “The consolidation property is classified as LL = 60%...” LL is not consolidation properties?
• The literature covered in this work is very limited and I encourage a comprehensive review of literatures out there and using them here to support various assertions.

Author Response

Please find an attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I see that the authors have addressed most of the suggestions and I believe that the article is now improved. I refer to the “point” in the authors response and send the following comments to be adressed.

Point 2: The authors have provided definition for cc and ck. But the symbols used in defining them should also be defined properly.

Point 7: The authors say that “marine soft soils can simply be classified by liquid limit”. This needs to be substantiated with references in the article. I know that there are correlations suggested to relate Cc with LL. But how proper they are for this type of material needs to be commented. For example, in figure 7 the correlations between cc and LL is poor for Incheon region. This deviation should be discussed.

Point 9: The authors say that “The secondary compression such as creep deformation is not considered in this study”. This should be clearly stated in the work and with a reason to disregard it. When one disregards an important soil behaviour, it must be stated clearly and with a reason for that considerations. Will there be consequence for disregarding it or it is indirectly accounted with the current formulations? This and similar aspects could be answered as well.

Point 10: The authors said that the “The sentences were modified to make a better sense”. I do not see any change on this aspect. For me the three considerations look less relevant unless the are significantly improved to provide a better argument for using equation 1 and 2.

Point 17: The authors have added some literature but I feel that more could also be added, e.g. to address the above points (point 7, 9) and other aspects.

Author Response

Please find a attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx