Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The discussers’ main point of criticism refers to the fact that the equivalent granular void ratio e* and derived quantities like the equivalent relative density Dr* and equivalent state parameter Ψ* were not used by the authors in the analysis of the experimental data. It must be mentioned, however, that until date, the e* concept has been developed and limited to granular mixtures, meaning sands with a non-plastic fines content. In addition, the concept of e* was mainly developed by focusing exclusively on binary mixtures, i.e. mixtures of a coarse and a fine granular material ([1, 4, 7, 9,10,11,12], Chang and Deng 2019, [2, 6] and the references therein). Such purely granular mixtures, composed of Chlef sand and non-plastic Chlef silt, were also used in the own tests of the discussers. The relations addressed by the discussers are well known for mixtures of sand with non-plastic fines and have been confirmed by numerous experimental studies in the literature.
However, in the present study, the authors have tested Hostun sand mixed with plastic fines, i.e. kaolin and calcigel bentonite clay. The applicability of the equivalent granular void ratio concept to mixtures of sand with clay is a subject of controversial discussion, and there is not much research work on that aspect. On the one hand, the concept was originally developed for sand–silt mixtures only, and the parameter b describes the amount of fine particles contributing to the load transfer in the soil skeleton. On the other hand, one could interpret the parameter b in a similar way for sand–clay mixtures, although the micromechanical mechanisms of the contribution of clayey and silty fines to the mechanical behaviour of the mixtures will be different. Considering the doubts of the applicability of the e* concept to sand–clay mixtures, the authors have not used e* or the derived quantities Dr* and Ψ* in their analysis of the test data.
Although the application of the e* concept to the data of the tested sand–plastic fines mixtures was beyond the scope of the original paper, the authors present some respective analysis in the following. The b values, in the current case describing the amount of plastic fines contributing to the mechanical behaviour of the mixtures, were determined by two methods: the first set of b values was obtained applying Eq. (1) developed by Rahman and Lo [8] as shown below, using parameters of the grain size distribution curves of the fine and coarse constituents of the mixture. The second set of b values was obtained by back-analysis of the critical state data from the undrained monotonic triaxial tests performed on the mixtures, where b was chosen to achieve a unique line in the e*-p’cs space.
where \(r = (\text{D}_{10}/\text{d}_{50})^{-1}\) and \(k = 1 - r^{0.25}\) with D10 = size of sand at 10% finer, d50 = size of fines at 50% finer.
As shown in Fig. 1a, there is a deviation between the b values obtained from the Rahman et al. [9] equation and the ones obtained via back-analysis. Equation (1) consistently yields larger values than those obtained via back-analysis. This is not surprising because Eq. (1) has been developed for granular mixtures, for which its prediction capacity has been well confirmed in former studies (e.g. [3, 5, 6, 9]). The data for the mixture of Hostun sand with 20% calcigel are not included in Fig. 1a since the slope of the steady-state line of this mixture considerably differed from the others. This is reasoned to be due to the fact that the threshold fines content fthr for the sand–calcigel mixtures is lower than 20%, and with an fc of 20%, the behaviour of the mixture is expected to be closer to that of pure calcigel (see original paper for further explanation). Replacing the global void ratio e with e*, the resulting data points for clean Hostun sand, sand with 10% calcigel or kaolin, and sand with 20% kaolin are shown in Fig. 1b, confirming a good agreement of the various data in the e*-p’cs space. The equation of the critical state line for clean Hostun sand is added as dashed line in the e*-p’cs diagram, also delivering a good description of most of the data for the various mixtures.
The current analysis give hints that the e* concept could be also applied to mixtures of sand with plastic fines. However, the physical meaning of the b value in that case and its dependence on various parameters like grain size distribution curves of the involved coarse and fine materials or the plasticity of the latter needs further investigations.
References
Baki MAL, Rahman MM, Lo SR, Gnanendran CT (2012) Linkage between static and cyclic liquefaction of loose sand with a range of fines contents. Can Geotech J 49(8):891–906
Barnett N, Rahman MM, Karim MR, Nguyen HK, Carraro JAH (2021) Equivalent state theory for mixtures of sand with non-plastic fines: a DEM investigation. Géotechnique 71(5):423–440
Benahmed N, Nguyen TK, Hicher PY, Nicolas M (2015) An experimental investigation into the effects of low plastic fines content on the behaviour of sand/silt mixtures. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 19(1):109–128
Goudarzy M, Rahman MM, König D, Schanz T (2016) Influence of non-plastic fines content on maximum shear modulus of granular materials. Soils Found 56(6):973–983
Goudarzy M, Rahemi N, Rahman MM, Schanz T (2017) Predicting the maximum shear modulus of sands containing nonplastic fines. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 143(9):06017013
Porcino DD, Diano V, Triantafyllidis T, Wichtmann T (2020) Predicting undrained static response of sand with non-plastic fines in terms of equivalent granular state parameter. Acta Geotech 15:867–882
Rahman MM, Lo SR, Baki MAL (2011) Equivalent granular state parameter and undrained behaviour of sand–fines mixtures. Acta Geotech 6:183–194
Rahman MM, Lo SR (2008) The prediction of equivalent granular steady state line of loose sand with fines. Geomech Geoeng Int J 3(3):179–190
Rahman MM, Lo SR, Gnanendran CT (2008) On equivalent granular void ratio and steady state behaviour of loose sand with fines. Can Geotech J 45(10):1439–1455
Rahman MM, Cubrinovski M, Lo SR (2011) Initial shear modulus of sandy soils and equivalent granular void ratio. Geomech Geoeng 7(3):219–226
Thevanayagam S, Shenthan T, Mohan S, Liang J (2002) Undrained fragility of clean sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 128(10):849–859
Yang J, Wei LM, Dai BB (2015) State variables for silty sands: Global void ratio or skeleton void ratio? Soils Found 55(1):99–111
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the discussers for their comments regarding the manuscript. In the response, the concerns raised by the discussers are addressed.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Goudarzy, M., Sarkar, D., Lieske, W. et al. Reply to Discussion of ‘Influence of plastic fines content on the liquefaction susceptibility of sands: monotonic loading’, by Meisam Goudarzy, Debdeep Sarkar, Wolfgang Lieske, Torsten Wichtmann; Acta Geotechnica, doi.org/10.1007/s11440-021–01,283-w. Acta Geotech. 18, 2867–2868 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01829-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-01829-0