Simulations of Fine-Meshed Biaxial Tests with Barodesy

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript overall presents high scientific quality and soundness, however there are number of minor issues that need to be corrected before publishing. The paper is well written and contain very much valuable information, the main concern is the structure, the presentation and the exposure of original work performed by the authors. The specific comments are listed below:

The introduction part needs more details on the aim of the research, and clearer presentation of the gap in the present knowledge. Performing the numerical simulation on already existing findings is just a part of the presented research.

l.35 Symbols and notation cannot be on of the main chapters of the manuscript. That is not the common practice, authors should present it as a list of symbols with description before the introduction or after the discussion part, please refer to the instruction for authors (or add this section to abbreviation part). The idea would be to replace the extended appendixes with the explanation of models.

l.36 The numbering of lines is not consistent.

l.36 This chapter should be named as materials and methods, where all the used models, equations and formulas are explained and described.

l.55 Tabel 1 should go after the Figure 2 to keep the order of reference in the main text.

l. 57 Please delete cf. in all text, it's not a common practice for scientific publication, keep the formatting according the Journal requirements.

l.78-82. Such reference, or explanation is to general, please provide more details, and then in the discussion section please explain whether the assumptions presents any limitations.

l.92 In reviewers opinion it's not necessary to include the appendixes in the manuscript. Please, choose most valuable results and include them in the main text. Just wisely explain your choice, Figures often tells more the the words.

l.116 Please include all the equations used in the study in Materials and methodology, not in the results test. 

l.117-120 Providing those information makes the manuscript less original, it seems at it is just a repetition of test. Please expose more of the novelty by indicating the numerical approach. 

l.127 The reviewer does not believe the results section is appropriate place to include all the equations developed by other authors in the past. Instead of presenting the equations give mor original results (those included in App. would be very much of an interest)   

l.171 The amount of the material included in appendixes are sufficient to publish separate paper. Please select scientifically most valuable results and include the in the main text.

Author Response

We are grateful for the suggestions of the reviewers and have revised our manuscript carefully. In the attached PDF file we give detailed answers to the comments and refer to the page in the revised manuscript. Changes to the text concerning the remarks of the reviewers are marked in blue in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Simulations of fine-meshed biaxial tests with barodesy" presented the simulation of drained plane strain tests for soils with different stress histories and normally distributed void ratio over the elements using the constitutive model Barodesy.

The article is very well organized in all the sections and written in a very good English. Only minor editing is required prior to acceptance. The Authors are invited to address the comments below:

 1. I would like the Authors to improve the introduction and add more details on the reasons why they are modelling a variable void ratio (e.g. natural variability, disturbance etc..). This is only discussed in section 6.

2. Line 81: use capital letter for Abaqus and add a reference.

3. Rename section 6 as "Discussion and conclusions"

4. In section 6, discuss other possible causes for having a variable void ratio (see my first comment)

Author Response

We are grateful for the suggestions of the reviewers and have revised our manuscript carefully. In the attached PDF file we give detailed answers to the comments and refer to the page in the revised manuscript. Changes to the text concerning the remarks of the reviewers are marked in blue in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf