Interlocking Settlement Induced by Widening Subgrade of Railway Line

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors are advised to add more details about the figures in legend, which may be clearer to understand.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

The paper has been revised to reflect the opinions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The conducted work “Interlocking settlement induced by widening subgrade of rail-way line” is good. However, following comments should be addressed to further improve paper:

1.      Add recent relevant literature review from more 2022 papers in introduction section. Also, explicitly mention the novelty and research significance of current work in last paragraph of introduction section.

2.      Section 2 must be separated into two sections w.r.t methodology and results.

3.      In current form, results look like a lab report. There are relatively more figures and tables in results section with less explanation. Only very important tables and figures should be kept in main text of paper, and important tables and figures may be shown in annexure.

4.      Outcome should be further discussed in detail. More scientific reasoning emphasis is required while elaborating outcome.

5.      This work seems just one case study. There should be a separate section (before conclusions section) explaining the implementation of this research in real field for practicing professionals for other generic scenarios.

6.      Closing remarks should be added at the end of conclusion section keeping in mind all conclusive bullet points.

7.      English Language should be improved throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

The paper has been revised to reflect the opinions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented an interesting case study on the long-term settlements of the reinforced embankment subgrade on the existing operating railway line during and after construction and the interlocking settlement that occurred during the embankment widening. I believe that the research presented in this paper is quite interesting, so my overall recommendation is to accept it after minor revisions. Namely, the Conclusions section could be supplemented with information on the limitations of the study, a comparison of the results with the expected or previously published results of similar studies, as well as possible plans for further research on this topic.

Specific remarks are given below.

Line 48: there is a typo on Figure 1 (Existing emBACKment –> Existing emBANKment).

Line 62: there are typos on Figure 2 (re-bars -> rebars; Stabiztion -> Stabilization).

Line 63: I would suggest rephrasing the title 2-1 to “widening with standard embankment”, “Huge soil” to “new embankment”, and title 2-2 to “widening with RSR”.

Lines 69–70: “…line was extended without additional paper by installing an RSR on the slope.” – is “paper” a typo? Please change to “…line was extended by installing an RSR on the slope.”

Line 91: please add a description/explanation of “N value”.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

The paper has been revised to reflect the opinions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx