Analysis of Dynamic Deformation Response of Closely Spaced Square Footings on Geogrid-Reinforced Sand under Cyclic Loading
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presented a laboratory testing of dynamic deformation response of closely spaced square footings on geogrid-reinforced sand under cyclic loading. In general, the manuscript is well written and provide abundant information. However, there are several issues should be corrected or further clarified:
1. The language should be double-checked. I have seen several mistakes, and this article should proofread during the possible revision. After a double-check of the English used to try to avoid any typographical error.
2. The tensile strength unit of geogrid in Table 1 is wrong when the yield elongation is 2 % and 5 %. It is recommended to replace (kPa) with (kN/m).
3. According to the paper ' 2.2 Test device ' point 2, it is recommended to supplement the picture of the closely spaced footing.
4. In the 5th and 6th lines of “2.3 Test scheme”, there are two 'P0 = 200 kPa, P0 = 160 kPa'. According to the author 's description of the parameters in Formula (1), one should be the center value of the dynamic load, and the other is the amplitude. It is recommended to check and modify.
5. In the paper “2.4 Test procedure” point 3, “At this time, a flexible displacement meter is installed on the laid geogrid, as shown in Fig. 3.” It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the number of flexible displacement meters should be 3, which is suggested to be modified.
6. In Section 3.1 “Fig.5 is the curves of the relationship between the number of cycles and the footing settlement of the unreinforced sand foundations under closely spaced footings with different spacing ratios (S/B), respectively.” It is recommended that “respectively” be deleted.
7. In section 3.3, “The strain of geogrid is measured by a flexible displacement meter.” From Fig. 3, it should be three flexible displacement meters, and it is recommended to check and modify.
Author Response
This manuscript presented a laboratory testing of dynamic deformation response of closely spaced square footings on geogrid-reinforced sand under cyclic loading. In general, the manuscript is well written and provide abundant information. However, there are several issues should be corrected or further clarified:
- The language should be double-checked. I have seen several mistakes, and this article should proofread during the possible revision. After a double-check of the English used to try to avoid any typographical error.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer, and the wrong language has been modified in this article. There was no typographical error after repeated checking of English.
- The tensile strength unit of geogrid in Table 1 is wrong when the yield elongation is 2 % and 5 %. It is recommended to replace (kPa) with (kN/m).
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer, “ kPa ”has been replaced with “ kN/m ” in Table 1.
- According to the paper ' 2.2 Test device ' point 2, it is recommended to supplement the picture of the closely spaced footing.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer. Photographs of closely spaced square footings have been added to the paper.
- In the 5th and 6th lines of “2.3 Test scheme”, there are two 'P0= 200 kPa, P0= 160 kPa'. According to the author 's description of the parameters in Formula (1), one should be the center value of the dynamic load, and the other is the amplitude. It is recommended to check and modify.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer, the meaning of the parameter symbols in Formula (1) has been carefully checked and modified.
- In the paper “2.4 Test procedure” point 3, “At this time, a flexible displacement meter is installed on the laid geogrid, as shown in Fig. 3.” It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the number of flexible displacement meters should be 3, which is suggested to be modified.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer, which have been revised in the corresponding position of Section 2.4.
- In Section 3.1 “Fig.5 is the curves of the relationship between the number of cycles and the footing settlement of the unreinforced sand foundations under closely spaced footings with different spacing ratios (S/B), respectively.” It is recommended that “respectively” be deleted.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewer, ' respectively ' has been deleted.
- In section 3.3, “The strain of geogrid is measured by a flexible displacement meter.” From Fig. 3, it should be three flexible displacement meters, and it is recommended to check and modify.
Answer: Thanks for the valuable suggestions made by the reviewers, which have been revised in the corresponding position of Section 3.3.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This reviewed paper presents the experimental results of researches of dynamic model of closely spaced footings and the main goal was to determine their optimal spacing under cyclic dynamic loading. Two types of subsoil were used: unreinforced and reinforced sand foundations.
The issues raised are particularly important from the point of view of increasingly tight development, forced by the shrinking of areas suitable for investment, especially in highly urbanized areas.
The assessed work is interesting, properly thought-out and preceded by an in-depth analysis of the available materials. As part of the work, a prototype test stand was prepared, not forgetting such important details as, for example, taking into account the limit size of model of fundament in order to eliminate the potential the influence of the size effect, and the tests were carried out according to the developed procedure: sand filling, instrument embedding, geogrid laying, and dynamic load applied. The analyses of the obtained results are detailed and accurate, and the presented conclusions result directly from the research.
The critical remarks and another:
In general, in my opinion, the work is complete and the topic is exhausted in the assumed scope. Particularly noteworthy is the very carefully made and detailed graphic part of the work, illustrating the results of the research, which significantly increases the readability and value of the study.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
This reviewed paper presents the experimental results of researches of dynamic model of closely spaced footings and the main goal was to determine their optimal spacing under cyclic dynamic loading. Two types of subsoil were used: unreinforced and reinforced sand foundations.
The issues raised are particularly important from the point of view of increasingly tight development, forced by the shrinking of areas suitable for investment, especially in highly urbanized areas.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer 's recognition of the research content of this article.
The assessed work is interesting, properly thought-out and preceded by an in-depth analysis of the available materials. As part of the work, a prototype test stand was prepared, not forgetting such important details as, for example, taking into account the limit size of model of fundament in order to eliminate the potential the influence of the size effect, and the tests were carried out according to the developed procedure: sand filling, instrument embedding, geogrid laying, and dynamic load applied. The analyses of the obtained results are detailed and accurate, and the presented conclusions result directly from the research.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer 's recognition of the work done in this article.
The critical remarks and another:
In general, in my opinion, the work is complete and the topic is exhausted in the assumed scope. Particularly noteworthy is the very carefully made and detailed graphic part of the work, illustrating the results of the research, which significantly increases the readability and value of the study.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer 's recognition of the research work of this article. Later, based on the existing research results, we will continue to enrich the research content of this paper and provide important reference significance for practical engineering.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
