Experimental Study on the Scouring Rate of Cohesive Soil in the Lower Yellow River
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
Overall, the text should be revised and edited. In the Results section ( Analysis of Results ), the authors provide an introduction to the methods and describe the computational methods used in the data analysis.
Special Comments:
In the Methods, the authors describe the soil sample remodeling,without addressing the temporal component, i.e., when the sample was considered mature or consolidated enough to be representative for analysis, or providing references for this method
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following contents are the alterations based on reviewer’s comments, all of which have been highlighted with red in the article.
General comments:
Overall, the text should be revised and edited. In the Results section (Analysis of Results), the authors provide an introduction to the methods and describe the computational methods used in the data analysis.
Special Comments:
In the Methods, the authors describe the soil sample remodeling, without addressing the temporal component, i.e., when the sample was considered mature or consolidated enough to be representative for analysis, or providing references for this method
Reply: Soil sample remodeling is considered in this way. When remolding the soil sample, it is not necessary to consider the time, but it is necessary to consider the deposition time of the soil sample to carry out the scouring test. That is, taking a soil sample for scouring test every settlement period, and measuring the water content of the soil sample at the same time. In this way, the different groups of scouring tests under different water content and the scouring rate of soil samples with different water content is obtained.
In addition, the rest of the text has also been slightly revised and has been highlighted in red.
Thank you again for your guidance on this paper!
Best wishes
Na He
March 16, 2022
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please include some numerical results and concluding remarks in the abstract.
An introduction is focused on too old studies reported on the topic. It should be expanded to include a more detailed discussion of current problems. It should be dedicated to present critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. Also, critical comments should be made on the results of the cited works.
There are several studies reported on the factors affecting the scour rate of cohesive soil. Would authors explicitly specify the novelty of their work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made? In the last paragraph of the introduction, write the specific objectives of this work clearly, as points (i)..... (ii)....(iii) ......and (iv).
A statistical approach that incorporates mixed effects may be required to strengthen the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the alterations made to this article based on reviewer’s comments, all of which have been highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors：
Please include some numerical results and concluding remarks in the abstract.
An introduction is focused on too old studies reported on the topic. It should be expanded to include a more detailed discussion of current problems. It should be dedicated to present critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. Also, critical comments should be made on the results of the cited works.
There are several studies reported on the factors affecting the scour rate of cohesive soil. Would authors explicitly specify the novelty of their work? What progress against the most recent state-of-the-art similar studies was made? In the last paragraph of the introduction, write the specific objectives of this work clearly, as points (i)..... (ii)....(iii) ......and (iv).
A statistical approach that incorporates mixed effects may be required to strengthen the study.
Reply: 1. The author has added some numerical results in the abstract.
- The author has added some new relevant literature, and evaluated the cited literature to draw out his own research.
- In the last paragraph of the introduction, the author has clearly wrote down the specific objective of the work.
In addition, the rest of the text has also been slightly revised and has been highlighted in red.
Thank you again for your guidance on this article!
Best wishes
Na He
March 16, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
- Abstract: p-1, lines 12-13 - can rewrite for better clarity
- Abstract should clearly state the contribution of the work and its specific applicaiton (p-1, lines 25-27 must be improved)
- Introduction - Readers are not familiar with the reaches of Yellow River and hence author should describe the condition of deposits first before discussing on the scourability in the region.
- Authors mention layered deposit in p-1 line 33, can they present the geotechnical properties of the different deposits?
- Introduction should define the specific problem addressed by authors and the need for the study along with its applications. In this case, the authors have missed it and I strongly suggest to restructure the introduction
- Geotechnical properties of the soil and its classification must be discussed before discussing the testing device
- Authors should give the readers an idea of velocity profile in the study region (Yellow River). Otherwise it is difficult to relate to the testing, results and discussion
- At what water content was the soil sample prepared? How was it decided?
- Section 2.1.3 must be discussed earlier than the flume set-up. Sample 2 has only 30% fines content. And it cannot be classified as cohesive soil.
- Authors should include the plastic behaviour of the soils selected like its liquid limit and plasticity index.
- Have authors followed any specific procedure for remoulding. Please include reference for the same
- How was the flow rate decided?
- Figure 5 - please mark the region of observation
- Authors start the introduction and testing procedure stating the soil is cohesive but in discussion relate to granular cohesive soil. Why? This makes it mandatory to classify the soil.
- p.7, line 223, can authors explain why waterbody is not turbid inspite of dislodging of soil aggregates?
- Table 3, how was the shear stress calculated?
- p.9, lines 266-269, can authors discuss on this observation and compare it with similar soil in other literature and in other granular soils too.
- p.9, line 275, though in title, only in page 9, authors mention cemented cohesive soil-can you explain what is meant by cemented here?
- p.9, lines 281-282 - again here the authors mention size of soil particles, it is better to mention the range in the study and compare with it available literature.
- Was selection of dry density in line with the water content?
- Discussion based on testing but not on the soil factors and there is no comparison in other similar set-ups. This limits readership
- Section 4.2 - there is no extremely fine sediment in sample 2. In fact, with fines less than 30%, it is granular in nature. Please change discussion accordingly
- p.12, line334 - what is the error? How was it modified?
- p.12-13, lines 334 - 350, authors have to elaborate on this section with suitable proof or reference
- In the conclusion, again authors mention about the different scouring rate at different sections of the yellow river but the study has not given any idea on this. This should be rectified as otherwise the readers cannot use it for further research.
- All through the manuscript, authors have discussed only their testing and results. But there is no integration with the scouring in the Yellow River. This should be rectified
- Authors mention cemented soil in the title, what do they mean by it and where in the manuscript are there testing and discussion on the same.
- Sample 2 is not fine-grained. Discussion on it must be suitably modified.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
Thank you very much for your advice and guidance on this paper, which has benefited me a lot. The following are the alterations made to this article based on reviewer comments, all of which have been highlighted in red.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Abstract: p-1, lines 12-13 - can rewrite for better clarity
Reply: This sentence has been rewrited .
- Abstract should clearly state the contribution of the work and its specific applicaiton (p-1, lines 25-27 must be improved)
Reply: This part has been reorganized accordingly.
- Introduction - Readers are not familiar with the reaches of Yellow River and hence author should describe the condition of deposits first before discussing on the scourability in the region.
- Authors mention layered deposit in p-1 line 33, can they present the geotechnical properties of the different deposits?
- Introduction should define the specific problem addressed by authors and the need for the study along with its applications. In this case, the authors have missed it and I strongly suggest to restructure the introduction
Reply: For questions 3, 4 and 5, the author has reorganized the corresponding parts, and with the aim of better illustrate their importance, we added figures 1 and 2.
- Geotechnical properties of the soil and its classification must be discussed before discussing the testing device
Reply: The author has revised this part in section 2.1.3 and move this part ahead of the test tank.
- Authors should give the readers an idea of velocity profile in the study region (Yellow River). Otherwise it is difficult to relate to the testing, results and discussion
Reply: The starting velocity of soil samples is not involved in this paper, so the Yellow River velocity chart is not added in this paper.
- At what water content was the soil sample prepared? How was it decided?
Reply: Take a soil sample as an example. First remodeling the obtained soil sample, In the subsequent scouring test, taking a soil sample for scouring test under each settlement period, and measuring the water content of the soil sample at the same time. In this way, the different groups of scouring tests have different water content.
- Section 2.1.3 must be discussed earlier than the flume set-up. Sample 2 has only 30% fines content. And it cannot be classified as cohesive soil.
Reply: The question is the same as that in question 6. For details, see question 6 please.
- Authors should include the plastic behaviour of the soils selected like its liquid limit and plasticity index.
Reply: The author has added liquid limits and plastic limits for soil samples in Table 1.
- Have authors followed any specific procedure for remoulding. Please include reference for the same
Reply: The process of soil sample remolding is relatively conventional, based on the experience of previous tests, without specific standards.
- How was the flow rate decided?
Reply: According to the previous research results, the starting of cohesive soil is divided into three standards: individual micro cluster starting, a small amount of micro cluster starting and general micro cluster starting. According to this starting standard, setting a small flow initially in the test, and gradually increasing the flow according to the state of different stages of the soil sample until the soil sample is damaged and the test is completed. The flow range of this test is 20m3 / H ~ 110m3 / h, which is adjusted by increasing the flow of 10m3 / h each time, and the scouring time of each group of flow is 2h. The test tank is a closed tank. The water flow fills the tank and the water depth is fixed, so the flow velocity increases with the increase of flow capacity.
- Figure 5 - please mark the region of observation
Reply: The author has marked the observation region in Figure 5.
- Authors start the introduction and testing procedure stating the soil is cohesive but in discussion relate to granular cohesive soil. Why? This makes it mandatory to classify the soil.
Reply: The question is the same as that in questions 6 and 9. For details, see question 6 please.
- p.7, line 223, can authors explain why waterbody is not turbid inspite of dislodging of soil aggregates?
Reply: The cohesive soil blocks are motioned in sheets or blocks. During the whole incipient motion process, the water body is not turbid, which is obviously different from that of granular sand.
- Table 3, how was the shear stress calculated?
Reply: The author has added a method to calculate the shear stress. Please see Formulas 3 to 5 for details.
- p.9, lines 266-269, can authors discuss on this observation and compare it with similar soil in other literature and in other granular soils too.
Reply: Thanks for the expert's proposal. The paper only focuses on the author's soil sample particle size range. In the future, more particle size range will be obtained for research.
- p.9, line 275, though in title, only in page 9, authors mention cemented cohesive soil-can you explain what is meant by cemented here?
Reply: The cemented cohesive soil mentioned here is still cohesive soil. In order not to cause ambiguity, it is unified as cohesive soil in this paper.
- p.9, lines 281-282 - again here the authors mention size of soil particles, it is better to mention the range in the study and compare with it available literature.
Reply: Thanks for the expert's proposal. The paper only focuses on the author's soil sample particle size range. In the future, more particle size range will be obtained for research.
- Was selection of dry density in line with the water content?
Reply: The two are consistent.
- Discussion based on testing but not on the soil factors and there is no comparison in other similar set-ups. This limits readership
Reply: Thanks for the advice of the experts, the author will continue to make up for this part in the future work.
- Section 4.2 - there is no extremely fine sediment in sample 2. In fact, with fines less than 30%, it is granular in nature. Please change discussion accordingly
Reply: Particles with a median particle size of less than 0.01mm belong to the category of very fine sand. In this study, soil sample 2 has a median particle size of 0.01mm, which can be classified as very fine sand.
- p.12, line334 - what is the error? How was it modified?
Reply: Formula 5 mentioned in line 334 is not wrong either, or the formula is only related to residual shear stress. In order to establish a more comprehensive formula, formula 6 is fitted. After modification, these two formulas are respectively formula 9 and Formula 10.
- p.12-13, lines 334 - 350, authors have to elaborate on this section with suitable proof or reference
Reply: Here, the author comprehensively considers the factors such as flow shear stress, soil sample moisture content and viscosity content, and establishes the starting scouring rate including multiple factors. Because the author fits the test data obtained by himself, there may be a problem of application scope. However, the research idea is worthy of reference.
- In the conclusion, again authors mention about the different scouring rate at different sections of the yellow river but the study has not given any idea on this. This should be rectified as otherwise the readers cannot use it for further research.
Reply: The reviewers are absolutely correct here. According to the opinions, we delete the first sentence in the conclusion.
- All through the manuscript, authors have discussed only their testing and results. But there is no integration with the scouring in the Yellow River. This should be rectified
Reply: Because the erosion test of the Yellow River on the prototype is not easy to do, the starting erosion test on the soil samples obtained on the prototype is carried out in this paper, so as to make a theoretical study on the starting erosion of cohesive soil, which will provide a certain basis for the quantitative understanding of the starting and erosion resistance of cohesive soil.
- Authors mention cemented soil in the title, what do they mean by it and where in the manuscript are there testing and discussion on the same.
Reply: The title may not be appropriate and should be uniformly revised to cohesive soil.
- Sample 2 is not fine-grained. Discussion on it must be suitably modified.
Reply: This problem is detailed in the modification to question 6. The text has been modified.
In addition, the rest of the text has also been slightly revised and has been highlighted in red.
Thank you again for your guidance on this article!
Best wishes
Na He
March 16, 2022
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
