Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations on Unsaturated Silty Soils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1-Figures have poor quality and some parts of them are covered by black cover (Fig.6, 8, 9, 11, 13).
2- There is no graph in Fig.8. Besides, change (e) to (c).
3-English should be improved. Many mistakes exist in the manuscript.
4- References are old. Use some more new references.
5- The works in the introduction were only mentioned. For example, lines 62-64, “In the literature,… conditions [13-27]” seems not appropriate. Expand some of the previous works with more details.
6- Change “3.Results” to “3. Results and Discussion”.
7- In the last paragraph of the introduction, mention the gap of previous works and the novelty of your work.
8-In Table 1, why Plasticity index (PI)=11? Since PI=LL-PL, PI should be 10 according to the values of Table 1.
9- ASTM standard D3080 is for consolidated drained condition. ASTM D3080: Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions. So, why you used this standard for undrained conditions (lines 304-305)?
10-Line 387 and 388, Why tests were terminated until the settlements reached 20 percent of the foundation width? Use reference.
11- Use your experimental real picture from Model test setup along with its schematic Figure (Figure 10).
12-The number of figures is not in order. For example, there is two “Figure 13” (page 18 and 19).
13- Explain more the graphs of Figure 13 in page 18. For example, if all points were above the line, what would be your analysis?
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the reviewers for their time and contributions.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Authors proposed a new equation for the estimation of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations in unsaturated soils and found out the effect of water content and void ratio. The study in the manuscript on the calculation of ultimate bearing capacity (UBC) on unsaturated soils was comprehensive. The proposed equation was validated by using the laboratory testing data. The effects of water content and void ratio on the UBC were discussed and taken account into the calculation. Overall, the manuscript is well written and easy to understand. The reviewer would like to recommend minor revision before it can be accepted for the publication. The authors are advised to consider following comments in the revision.
1. The quality of Figures 6, 9, 11 needs to be improved.
2. Table 4: “308” should be “30.8”?, The authors need to check and confirm.
3. Line 46: “fiels” should be “field”? The authors need to check and confirm.
4, Figure 8 is under readable.
5, The authors are advised to double-check all the equations and make sure all the parameters have been defined.
6, It is good to provide the equation for the VG model and Fredlund’s model for the shear strength of unsaturated soil. Otherwise, the readers may have difficulty in understanding the definitions of parameters in Tables 3 and 4.
7, Conclusion should be concise. The authors are advised to combine the conclusions with conclusive statements.
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the reviewers for their time and contributions.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper aims to propose an equation to determine the UBC of shallow foundations on unsaturated silty soil layers. For this reason, authors have created a model experiment setup, where the UBC values of different types and sizes of model footing on silty soil layers with different SSD/MS and different VR values have been measured. Additionally, they have determined the SWCCs and SS parameters of unsaturated silt. The article has an interesting topic. However, there are some minor concerns that authors need to consider as follows:
1. The abstract should be improved by summarizing the findings of the study at the end of the abstract.
2. The contribution as compared to the existing literature is not well state.
3. What are the research gaps? How can you fill them compare to the existing models or methods in section 1.1 and explain the merit of your new proposed model.
4. I suggest authors to make a summarize Table under section 1.1 to clarify the difference between previous studies and his method. This table can contain for instance: authors, methods, soil type, findings
5. The methodology in section 2.2 is too lengthy, and it should be improved by deleting uneccessary discussions.
6. Please, check the Table numbering list. After Figure 5, it should be Table 5 instead of Table 3.
7. The references authors have used are very old. I suggested authors to use more recent articles in this area.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the reviewers for their time and contributions.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper performs a series of model tests to determine the foundation UBC, and a new equation has been proposed 22 for the characterization of the UBC of shallow foundations on unsaturated silty soils. The manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions.
1. The quality of the figures needs to be improved. For example, there are shadows under the line in Figures 6d, 9f, and 11, and the content is completely invisible in Figure 8.
2. The introduction part has a lot of content, which is suggested to be simplified.
3. An appropriate description of the similarity design for model experiments is recommended.
4. Can equation 8 be compared with in-situ 1:1 field testing data to validate its applicability?
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the reviewers for their time and contributions.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
This study investigated the effect of water content and void ratio on the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations in unsaturated silty soils (low plastic adapazari silty). Decent lab and analysis work has been done in this study. There are some issues to clarify before possible publication in the journal:
Introduction
1. In the title ‘( Low Plastic Adapazari Silty )’ can be removed and placed in Material Analysis.
2. Line24, Keywords suggested 5.
3. Line 47, ‘SSD’ has no specific explanation and definition.
4. Lines 113-116, ‘In addition, it has been reported that the total SS of the unsaturated cohesive soil (including the contribution of MS to the SS) can be obtained with the UC, so there is no need to measure the MS value of the cohesive soils’, who has ‘reported’ here. Please refer to the literature.
Materials and Methods
5. Lines 185 and 194, font format is not uniform.
6. 'Existing studies in the literature have shown that', where is the literature, please clarify.
7. Line 293, ‘The samples for the DSB test were statically compacted, just like the model testing’. Please clarify why static compaction was used?
Results
8. Lines 335-337, ‘Samples with VRs of 0.65, 0.70 and 0.75 and at SSD of 65%, 70%, 75%, 85% and 100% were created using static compression in accordance with the scenario determined in this study’. What is the ‘scenario’? Please clarify.
9. Lines 353-354, ‘Figure 8 shows the failure envelopes formed by considering the maximum SS values of the samples’. What is ‘the failure envelopes’? Figure 8 has nothing. Why?
10. Lines 369-370, What do the black and blue shaded areas mean in Figure 9?
11. Lines 397-398, ‘As seen, no clear failure point has been observed in the curves’. How is the ‘failure point’ defined? Please clarify.
12. Line 477, the figure number is wrong. It should be Figure 14.
13. Some figures are shaded. They need to be modified.
Author Response
I would like to express my deep gratitude to the reviewers for their time and contributions.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1- English should be improved more.
2- Caption of Table 7 should be changed.
3- line 37: what is φu?
Reviewer 5 Report
The revised manuscript is ready to publish.
