Evaluation of Methods Based on CPTu Testing for Prediction of the Bearing Capacity of CFA Piles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well written paper which describes interesting Case for comparison of various approaches to determine bearing capacity. Since paper is based just on results from one project in specific location all conclusions are only valid for this specific case and should not be general. 

Other than that interesting case study and good source of data for further comparisons.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

response to the review is in attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled: “Evaluation of Methods Based on CPTu testing for Prediction 2 the Bearing Capacity of CFA Piles” has been reviewed. The manuscript is dedicated to the prediction methods for the pile bearing capacity calculation based on the cone penetration test results (CPTu), namely UniCone method, LCPC method (Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées method) and the method involved in the Eurocode 7—2. The study can serve as a theoretical foundation for application of methods for designing of pile foundations.

The manuscript follows an easy approach to analyze the problem. However, some statements in this manuscript are not clear and questionable. Appropriate modifications should be made prior to a final decision.

 

Major comments:

1. The prediction method of pile ultimate bearing capacity in the article is based on the three existing methods, which leads to no good innovation in the manuscript. Could you please make some additional statements on the innovation of the manuscript?

2. The pile load model test diagram can not clearly show the test, and whether the left and right devices will share the load during the test? Did it cause the measured load to be inaccurate? It is hoped that the test device will be described in more detail in this paper. In addition, unloading test is also included in the test process, but the function of unloading test is not described in the following article, and it is hoped that it can be explained in the text.

3. Section 2.2.1: "This was defined as a maximum settlement of 0.05 mm during last 15 minutes". The meaning of this sentence is puzzling, please explain more clearly.

4. Section 2.2.2:Can the value of ‘a’ in P2.2.2 be described? And the influence of the value of ‘a’ on the results.

5.Section 2.4: Can the value of 20% be explained? Why not take a bigger or smaller one? What is the basis for this value? What impact will it have on the forecast results?

 

Minor comments:

1. The color matching in Figure 11 is not beautiful, please consider modifying

2. L277 ‘is compared with’-> ‘are compared with’

3. L355 ‘such a points’ -> ‘such a point’

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

response to the review is in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The content of the paper might be useful for foundation engineers.

I recommend this manuscript could be accepted.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

response to the review is in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper compared three prediction methods for the pile bearing capacity calculation. A set of CFA piles was tested to obtain reference bearing capacity. The ability of the prediction 15 methods to determine the bearing capacity of the pile was investigated. This is a good case study and a lot of valuable data was provided. While, this manuscript is relatively lack of scientific conclusion and novelty.

1 Review on the pile types is not necessary. Introduce more literature about pile bearing capacity prediction.

2 Figure 2-3 and the introduction of Continuous Flight Auger Piles are not necessary.

3 Discussion part is too short.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

response to the review is in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Overall, scientific research is well presented.

The only thing I would like to note is that in the Results section, subsection 3.4, which discusses the Analysis of Predicted Pile Bearing Capacity, as well as the regression analysis of the results obtained using the UniCone, LCPC and EC 7-2 methods, should be moved to Discussions.

It would be great if in the Discussions you would consider your results obtained by comparing the methods for assessing the bearing capacity of a pile with the results of comparing the same methods of other authors.

And in the Conclusions, it is necessary to provide more detailed statements about the reliability of the methods used to assess the bearing capacity of the pile foundation according to the analysis data, indicating the figures obtained for comparison and greater clarity.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

response to the review is in attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx