Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Figures 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27 need to be improved (at least 300dpi)
2. Why choose the ideal elastic-plastic soil model?
3. Why ignore the influence of groundwater? Are soil properties before and after lowering of the groundwater table considered?
4. How is the element in contact between the soil and the structure described?
5. Figure 26 a, why when the pile diameter increases from 1.2 to 1.4m, the vertical displacement tends to increase?
6. Obviously, the embedded depth of the retaining pile only increases efficiency to a certain extent. Beyond this depth, increasing the embedded depth of the pile does not make much sense. In this work, 
7. In addition, the effective number of braces seems to be 4, too many braces do not affect the maximum vertical and horizontal displacement of the structure. Why not survey to effectively embedded pile depth?

Author Response

Attached please find the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Some language corrections are needed.

 

Rows 590, 606, 613

The percentage differences between measurements and calculations are not correctly determined. The difference must be related to value of the measurement which leads to differences of over 100%.

 

 

The calculations indicate larger differences from the measurements in terms of vertical displacements compared to horizontal displacements.

Can this be caused by the constitutive law used for soil?

It would have been interesting to approach another constitutive criterion for the soil.

Author Response

Attached please find the response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx