Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors attempt to discuss the load transfer law of embankment and the sensitivity of several influence factors. However, the manuscript appears to have weaknesses that need to be improved and should be reconsidered after major revision.

1.       The abstract is too lengthy and repeats too many words. It is also suggested that the conclusion section of the abstract should not be too detailed and could be reduced in length.

2.       The introduction could be more summative rather than just presenting previous work, especially the first paragraph.

3.       There is a comma formatting error on line 84

4.       Is it possible to add specific experimental pictures or schematics of field tests? For example, pictures of the field, the device for measuring pressure, etc.

5.       Line 145, where it should be less than 1m for the pressure to be almost identical at both places?

6.       Should there also be a category for the two images in the image caption in line 154?

7.       The geogrid is difficult to see in figure 6, is it possible to use a partial zoom?

8.       In section 3.2.1,the sentence pattern describing the trend is too homogeneous.

9.  In line 255, the way to clarify the proportion of the load shared by the soil arching effect and the membrane effect is rather vague, which can be described schematically.

10.    In table 5, what is the maximum accuracy of the settlement data that can be achieved to a few digits?

11.    Would it be better to give the formula for the theoretically calculated value?

12.    The following Ref. are recommended to be added:

Xiong, H., Wu, H., Bao, X., & Fei, J. (2021). Investigating effect of particle shape on suffusion by CFD-DEM modeling. Construction and Building Materials, 289, 123043.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

This article critically reviews the load transfer law of pile –supported reinforced embankments using numerical modelling by ABAQUS.  The validation of the numerical model with real time data was achieved with an error percentage ranging from 0.5% - 16%. In addition, numerical analysis was carried out on various parameters such as Embankment height, Pile Spacing, Pile cap width and Pile length. The study provides a clear picture of influencing parameters by using the ensibility analysis model.

A detail comparison on the theoretical value calculated based on various codes and researchers is compared with the Finite element model. Further, load-sharing ratio due to soil arching and  membrane effect is discussed in elaborated with the parameters considered in the study.  The research on the real time problem of the future concluded that the pile spacing and pile cap width is a highly influencing parameter in the variation of load sharing ratio.

 

The study can be extended to 3D model to confirm the conclusions stated based on the 2D model

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript aims to analyze the influence of key parameters on cross-section of pile-Supported reinforced embankment by FEM. These parameters include the pile length, pile cap width, embankment height, pile spacing, etc. The numerical model is validated against field test research. Based on my review, the manuscript has critical comments that need to consider before resubmission process. The following comments are suggested to improve the quality of this work.

 

[1] The FEM has already been used for analyzing the load-bearing capacity of piles. The authors need to present how to realize the soil arch effect and tensile membrane effect in the model, and the difference between this study and current literature.

[2] In 2.2.1, it seems that the stress ratio curve of Section III drops quickly, and then flattens out. However, the curve of Section IV keeps dropping till 150 days. Please give the reason why the reduction rate of stress ratio are different in the sections.

[3] In line 145, I think the embankment filling height should not be “greater”, but “smaller” than 1m.

[4] What’s the difference between Figure 2 and Figure 4? If there is no difference, it is not necessary to present the figure again.

[5] Several sentences lack the subject or the verb, such as “Research on load transfer mechanism of wide subgrade cross section” in line 209, and “The internal stress redistribution of pile-supported reinforced embankment under embankment load” in line 212, etc. The authors should check the syntax of the whole manuscript.

[6] The formula or method for calculating load transfer efficiency is not clear.

[7] In Figure 9, is S_AF considered as linear? Will it change when the evaluation scope changes?

[8] In line 371, according to the simulation results presented in the manuscript, the load ratio of shoulder is 51%-88%. If the scale expands, is there a possibility that the stress ratio is less than 50%? At this time, will the importance of soil arch effect and tensile membrane effect be changed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript, the authors presented an investigation on the correlation between the load transfer of pile-supported reinforced embankment and the pile dimensions, e.g., pile cap width, pile spacing, pile length, using the finite element analysis (FEA). However, the experimental part needs to be comprehended for the understanding and reproduction of the results. Recent research on the topic of load transfer in the pile-supported reinforced embankment and the effect of different pile dimensions needs to be provided and discussed. The model constructed for the FEA and the procedures used for the FEA should be provided in detail. The formulations of different standards, e.g., BS8006-1-1, BS8006-1-2, Nordic guidelines, Chinese specification, EBGEO 2010 should be provided in detail and discuss their differences. The font and style appeared in the figures need to be unified, the format of the text may need to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I agree to the publication of this paper

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work.

Thank you for your final decision to publish this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made significant improvements on the manuscript according to the comments; however, a few concerns are needed to be addressed before the publication.

(1)  In the conclusion part, the potential applications of the principles and methods discovered in the paper should be highlighted.

(2)  In Figure 16, the Y-axis should be adjusted to better show all the symbols and curves.

(3)   In page 22, line 563, “Increasing” should be changed to “increasing”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc