Analysis of Load-Settlement Curve Based on Load Transfer at Pile-Soil Interface
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
While the work is extensive, the technical presentation is very inappropriate. Equations are poorly presented and symbols are not consistent. Graphs are of poor quality and fuzzy. Info presented in graphs is not readable.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In general, English grammar and odd expressions should be revised.
2. Abstract
- What is full name of PKM?
- ‘burial depth’ need to be chaged as ‘embedded depth’ or ‘depth’.
3. Introduction
In general, the literature review should be extensive. A description of each study is required, and papers that are not particularly necessary in papers 7-12, 22-2, and 29-32 should be removed. Papers such as soil nailing describe the behavior between soil and grouting in detail. So, it is necessary to search those papers. Recently, the behavior of piles is measured with technologies such as BOTDR optical fiber sensing. Additional literature review is needed.
4. Although the behavior of the pile was evaluated only through experiments in this paper, a detailed explanation of the cavity expansion theory is needed in the introduction. Detailed literature review of the following papers or recent papers is required.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1991.41.2.173
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000622
5. Section 3.2
Figure 1 should be detailed with pictures of the pile test.
6. Is this experiment a displacement control test? Or is it a load control test? And the reason should be stated.
7. The description of the experiment is insufficient. Is the only difference between S1#, S2#, and S3# the speed of loading? The differences between the three samples should be clearly stated.
8. Shouldn't the settlement of the unloading curve in Figure 6b be expressed as a negative number?
9. In the unloading curve of Fig. 7a and c, the settling increases, and in the unloading curve of Fig. 7b, the settling decreases. What is the reason for the different behavior?
10. Figure 10.
It is expected that the skin friction of the pile was calculated based on Fig. 9. Since skin friction is the amount of change in load between two points, the same value is displayed between the two points. Figure 10 should be recalculated based on the paper below.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2020.106089
10. Fig. 10. The reduction of skin friction around 10 m should be clearly identified along with the characteristics of the ground. If necessary, it is necessary to present predicted values through theoretical formulas or numerical analysis.
11. Minor Comments
1) The following pictures should show the picture clearly by increasing the resolution. Except in Figure 1, the characters are not clearly visible.
Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
2) The parentheses of the formula numbers are placed in the next column.
3) Figure 1 Title:
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of test pile loading
> Figure 1. Schematic diagram of loading conditions in test pile
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor/Authors,
I have gone through the manuscript with the title “Analysis of load-settlement curve based on load transfer at pile-soil interface” The topic and results are impressive. The article will contribute to the literature on deep excavations. I think this submitted article lacks from the below issues:
1. The cause-effect relation was not expressed in the article clearly. The subject and purpose of the article should be expressed, and the cause-effect relation should be revealed more clearly.
2. What is the difference between this study from other studies in the literature. Because there are lots of similar studies in the literature and please make a comparison. Write the similar/non-similar points and emphasize your originality.
3. Explain a little more about the applications you have made in the measurements.
4. More information should be given about the experimental studies carried out. Photographs of the experiments should be included.
5. The introduction and literature review section should be improved. Bring along as much as you can the baseline scientific proof for the knowledge you are going to explore in further sections. The literature is better to be updated based on the most recent works. It would be better to include the following references and other references.
* A new real-time monitoring technique in calculation of the py curve of single thin steel piles considering the influence of driven energy and using strain gauge sensors
* A new design chart for estimating friction angle between soil and pile materials
* Imperialist competitive algorithm hybridized with multilayer perceptron to predict the load-settlement of square footing on layered soils.
* Analyzing the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on two-layered soil using two novel cosmology-based optimization techniques
6. The results and discussion are suitable to be more described. I think Figures requires more discussion.
7. I think the abstract and conclusion can be more informative
8. The language should be double-checked. I have seen several mistakes, and this article should proofread during the possible revision.
9. The figures should be more comprehensible. The quality of Figures also quite low and needs to be amended.
10. Write the units correctly. It should be kN instead of KN or kPa instead of KPA.
11. Some figures are hard to be evaluated by readers.
I believe that a more understandable article will be obtained when all these points are evaluated and added to the study.
I think that the study can be published in the journal after the revisions.
I wish success to the authors in their study.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The current version is a significant improvement.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author responded appropriately to the reviewer's comments.
