PONE-D-23-02538Influence of sand content on the mechanical properties of sand-silt mixtures from check dam deposits in the Loess Hilly of Ningxia,ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: You'll notice that the reviewers are advising a "major revision" of your paper before it can be processed further. Therefore, be sure to fully address all the issues that the reviewers, particularly reviewer #2, raised.

Note: If a reviewer requests that you reference their articles or the articles of their affiliates, you are not required to comply. Consider only works of writing that are pertinent to your own research.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paul Awoyera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.41962016) and the Doctoral Scientific Fund Project of the Ministry of Education of China (Project No.20136401110003)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text on page 12.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I consider this work novel. In general, the paper is well organized and written. The following comments and suggestions are provided for the author's revision:

Comments:

1. Abstract is not written appropriately. More precise results should be summarized

2. Novelty and significance of this study should be addressed.

3. Comparing fitted results to the measured ones is not adequate.

4. The literature review lacks thorough understanding on the recent developments in this research field. ground improvement methods should be explained

A. Vafaei, A., Choobbasti, A. J., Koutenaei, R. Y., Vafaei, A., Afrakoti, M. P., & Kutanaei, S. S. (2023). Effect of Barley Straw Fiber as a Reinforcement on the Mechanical Behavior of Babolsar Sand. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 1-20.

B. Ghadakpour, M., Fakhrabadi, A., Janalizadeh Choobbasti, A., Soleimani Kutanaei, S., Vafaei, A., Taslimi Paein Afrakoti, M., & Eisazadeh, N. (2022). Effect of post-construction moisture condition on mechanical behaviour of Fiber-reinforced-cemented-sand (FRCS). Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 17(6), 1852-1864.

C. Roshan, K., Choobbasti, A. J., Kutanaei, S. S., & Fakhrabadi, A. (2022). The effect of adding polypropylene fibers on the freeze-thaw cycle durability of lignosulfonate stabilised clayey sand. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 193, 103418.

D. Ghadakpour, M., Fakhrabadi, A., Janalizadeh Choobbasti, A., Soleimani Kutanaei, S., Vafaei, A., Taslimi Paein Afrakoti, M., & Eisazadeh, N. (2021). Effect of post-construction moisture condition on mechanical behaviour of Fiber-reinforced-cemented-sand (FRCS). Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 1-13.

E. Roshan, K., Choobbasti, A. J., & Kutanaei, S. S. (2020). Evaluation of the impact of fiber reinforcement on the durability of lignosulfonate stabilized clayey sand under wet-dry condition. Transportation Geotechnics, 23, 100359.

F. Afrakoti, M. T. P., Choobbasti, A. J., Ghadakpour, M., & Kutanaei, S. S. (2020). Investigation of the effect of the coal wastes on the mechanical properties of the cement-treated sandy soil. Construction and Building Materials, 239, 117848.

G. Vafaei, A., Choobbasti, A. J., Koutenaei, R. Y., Vafaei, A., Afrakoti, M. P., & Kutanaei, S. S. (2022). Experimental investigation of the mechanical behavior and engineering properties of sand reinforced with hemp fiber. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15(22), 1679.

5. The paper reads like a short report. The authors must improve the discussion in the paper. Avoid general conclusions and mention limitations of their work.

6. Validity and repeatability of the experiments and results should be checked.

7. A detailed experimental procedure and the accuracy of different components of the experimental system are given. Measurement equipments should be described. And also, the characteristics of measurement equipments should be given.

Reviewer #2: The paper studied the influence of sand content on the mechanical properties of sand-silt mixtures from check dam deposits in the Loess Hilly of Ningxia,China, in which the CD tests were performed and Duncan-Chang model was revised to describe the stress-strain relationship. The volumetric strain is not provided there, and the samples behave strain softening, which can not described the Duncan-chang model. In view of this, the paper can not be accepted for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Influence of sand content on the mechanical properties of sand-silt mixtures from check dam deposits in the Loess Hilly of Ningxia,China

PONE-D-23-02538R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paul Awoyera

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed. The article has the necessary quality to be accepted in this journal

Reviewer #2: The authors have revised the paper according to the comments and all the commnets have been addressed. It can be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********