Interpretation of Chemical Analyses and Cement Modules in Flysch by (Geo)Statistical Methods, Example from the Southern Croatia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe this work shows a good example of the joint use of lithological and geochemical data on the Eocene Flysch strata for joint statistical analysis and subsequent isolation of strata elements based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests.

The work is also valuable because it has a pronounced practical orientation – it is an assessment of rocks in the quality of raw materials for further use in the production of cement.

 

There are two comments to the text.

The first (Lines 45-46) concerns the interpretation by the authors of the definition of flysch - "The flysch is dominant lithology, that is [19] defined as deposition facies of thick sediments from gravitational flow, re-deposited clastics in deep water, often connected with late orogeny phase".

I believe that this is wrong and I give a definition of this concept from a sensible geological dictionary.

"Flycsh - a descriptive term used to denote the facies of marine sedimentary rocks. The facies is characterized by high-power sections of faunal poor, thin-layered, sediments with gradation stratification, represented mainly by marls, sandy and calcareous shales and silts rhythmically interlacing with conglomerates, coarse-grained sandstones and graywacke. A widespread pre-Orogenic sedimentary formation formed by a set of flysch facies deposited in various deflections as a result of rapid erosion of nearby uplifting mountain structures during the time immediately preceding the main phase of orogeny, or during erosion of internal ridges created in the early phases of diastrophism. For example, the flysch layers of the Late Cretaceous – Oligocene along the borders of the Alps, which filled the marginal deflections before the tectonic covers advancing to the north before the main (Miocene) phase of Alpine orogeny. A term of free use referring to any sediment having most of the lithological and stratigraphic features of flysch, for example, to almost any turbidites”.

 

Second (Line 287) – the value of pass level for SM is incorrectly specified. The text indicates 50%, and in Table 4.1 42%.

 

In Table 4.1, in the 1st line (Line 293), "Chemical analysis" should be replaced with "Chemical characteristics".

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear reviewer 1,

 

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions for authors. All changes in manuscript DOC, made according to your review, are marked in blue color.

 

Point 1:

The first (Lines 45-46) concerns the interpretation by the authors of the definition of flysch - "The flysch is dominant lithology, that is [19] defined as deposition facies of thick sediments from gravitational flow, re-deposited clastics in deep water, often connected with late orogeny phase".

 

I believe that this is wrong and I give a definition of this concept from a sensible geological dictionary.

 

"Flycsh - a descriptive term used to denote the facies of marine sedimentary rocks. The facies is characterized by high-power sections of faunal poor, thin-layered, sediments with gradation stratification, represented mainly by marls, sandy and calcareous shales and silts rhythmically interlacing with conglomerates, coarse-grained sandstones and graywacke. A widespread pre-Orogenic sedimentary formation formed by a set of flysch facies deposited in various deflections as a result of rapid erosion of nearby uplifting mountain structures during the time immediately preceding the main phase of orogeny, or during erosion of internal ridges created in the early phases of diastrophism. For example, the flysch layers of the Late Cretaceous – Oligocene along the borders of the Alps, which filled the marginal deflections before the tectonic covers advancing to the north before the main (Miocene) phase of Alpine orogeny. A term of free use referring to any sediment having most of the lithological and stratigraphic features of flysch, for example, to almost any turbidites”.

 

Response 1:

I agree with you. I put definition your proposed (Lines 56-67):

 

The flysch is dominant lithology which is a descriptive term used to denote the facies of marine sedimentary rocks. The facies is characterized by high-power sections of faunal poor, thin-layered, sediments with gradation stratification, represented mainly by marls, sandy and calcareous shales and silts rhythmically interlacing with conglomerates, coarse-grained sandstones and graywacke. A widespread pre-Orogenic sedimentary formation formed by a set of flysch facies deposited in various deflections as a result of rapid erosion of nearby uplifting mountain structures during the time immediately preceding the main phase of orogeny, or during erosion of internal ridges created in the early phases of diastrophism. For example, the flysch layers of the Late Cretaceous – Oligocene along the borders of the Alps, which filled the marginal deflections before the tectonic covers advancing to the north before the main (Miocene) phase of Alpine orogeny. A term of free use referring to any sediment having most of the lithological and stratigraphic features of flysch, for example, to almost any turbidites.

 

Also reference number 19 has been deleted.

 

Point 2:

Second (Line 287) – the value of pass level for SM is incorrectly specified. The text indicates 50%, and in Table 4.1 42%.

 

In Table 4.1, in the 1st line (Line 293), "Chemical analysis" should be replaced with "Chemical characteristics".

 

Response 2:

Line 350 – pass level for SM corrected to 42% like it was showen in Table 4.1.

 

In Table 4.1, in the 1st line (Line 359), "Chemical analysis" replaced with "Chemical characteristics".

 

 

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

   The paper presented statistic results of cement modules on the Luterian flysch,  South Croatia based chemical analyses. These results will be benefited to exploitation strategy on cement raw material. The following suggestions are provided for authors to revision on the paper.

    1. Although you processed space data separately from north to  intermediate, and southwest, all color scales differ significantly for SiO₂, CaO, and LSF. It may be more comparable using unifying scales for figures from  4.5 to 4.14 for corresponding parameters. All scales of all the figures should mark unit. 

   2.Figure 1.2 should be presented at a length scale not a current digital scale. Simutaneouly, clayey marl unit can not be found in the Figure 1.2 at all.

  3. LSF has been used carelessly widely, e.g. table 3.2  and table 4.1 as SZ, figure 4.11 as SL.

 4. Some expressions and strutures are incorrect, please check the paper thoroghly.

 5. Equation 6 left side is 2y(h), but your notion is 2 ϒ（h).

6. Please pay attention to the differences between "0" and "O" for your oxides.

7. I suggest you mark boreholes of figure 1.2 those occurred in figure1.3. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear reviewer 2,

 

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions for authors. All changes in manuscript DOC, made according to your review, are marked in green color.

 

Point 1:

1. Although you processed space data separately from north to intermediate, and southwest, all color scales differ significantly for SiO2, CaO, and LSF. It may be more comparable using unifying scales for figures from 4.5 to 4.14 for corresponding parameters. All scales of all the figures should mark unit.

 

Response 1:

I agree that all scales of all the figures should mark unit. Because of large differences in units between percentage intervals (35-55% / 2-26% / 46-700 -) for different observed compound (CaO / SiO₂ / LSF) I applied the same unit for each of them on all lithological units. Below are old (left side) and new, corrected images (right side).

• CaO (Figure 4.5., 4.9., 4.12.)
• SiO₂ (Figure 4.6., 4.10., 4.13.)
• LSF (Figure 4.7., 4.11., 4.14.)

Point 2:

2.Figure 1.2 should be presented at a length scale not a current digital scale. Simutaneouly, clayey marl unit can not be found in the Figure 1.2 at all.

 

Response 2:

A length scale was inserted in the Figure 1.2.

Clayey marl putted in the Figure 1.2. It is very small, near B-10.

 

Point 3:

3. LSF has been used carelessly widely, e.g. table 3.2 and table 4.1 as SZ, figure 4.11 as SL.

 

Response 3:

The reason for “SZ” appearing was Croatian translation for LSF and the reason for “SL” does not exist. We corrected all LSF to LSF (Table 3.2, Table 4.1, Figure 4.11, Line 26).

 

Point 4:

4. Some expressions and strutures are incorrect, please check the paper thoroghly.

 

Response 4:

The official English translator (Mia B.) reviewed the manuscript and all its corrections are visible in red in the manuscript. Of the phrases are the change in Line 13: interpolate maps to interpolating maps and cement module to cement modules.

 

Point 5:

5. Equation 6 left side is 2y(h), but your notion is 2 ϒ（h).

 

Response 5:

(2γ) changed to (2y) (Line 294) and 2γ(h) changed to 2y(h) (Line 300).

 

Point 6:

6. Please pay attention to the differences between "0" and "O" for your oxides.

 

Response 6:

Thank you for the observation. All oxide marks in the manuscript are checked and correctly marked with "O" (Line 354, Line 420).

 

Point 7:

7. I suggest you mark boreholes of figure 1.2 those occurred in figure1.3.

 

Response 7:

Boreholes from Figure 1.3 are now marked in the figure 1.2.

 

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx