Shaking Table Test of the Negative Skin Friction of a Single Pile Induced by Seismic Settlement of Model Soft Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made a good attempt to understand the Shaking table test of the negative skin friction of a single pile 2 induced by seismic settlement of soft soil

However, a few comments are mentioned below:

1. Reference must the improve. d Sultan et al. (1967) [12] It is wrong. Please look into and refine it. 

2. Title should be more precise

3. How negative skin friction is modeled in the Lab

4. Whether Table 1 is primary data or secondary data.

5. How soft soil is collected? 

6. Sampling procedure and pictures are missing

7. What is the dimension of the triaxial sample

8. How you decided on the pile diameter

9. How you collected the PGA and why?

10. How you captured negative skin from the shake table test ?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic of the article is quite interesting and up-to-date. However, I believe that the article will be read more by the reader if some deficiencies are eliminated.

The literature section needs to be more detailed and expanded. The literature section remained weak. It would be useful to introduce the study by emphasizing the importance of local soil conditions. Please check these references. The 2014 earthquake in Iquique, Chile: comparison between local soil conditions and observed damage in the cities of Iquique and Alto Hospicio. The effect of local soil conditions on structure target displacements in different seismic zones. Effects of local geology on ground motion near San Francisco Bay.  A study on the effect of local soil conditions in TBDY-2018 on earthquake behavior of steel structure. Soil amplification and effect of local site condition to spectral acceleration. Determination and Evaluation of Local Site Factors in Zeytinburnu, Istanbul, Turkey: A Scenario-Based Study. . Seismic response analysis of alluvial valley at bridge Site. Impact of local site effects on seismic risk assessment of reinforced concrete bridges.

Table and Figure explanations should be given before each of them.

Reasons for selection and limitation for the experiments should be added to the article. For other selection in the study, it is useful to add the reasons for the choice with 1-2 sentences.

The conclusion part needs to be expanded.

Contribution of your work to future studies and practice should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The following needs to be addressed to revise the manuscript before a decision can be taken. I am requesting major revision.

·      Please add some recent published manuscripts and discuss in your literature. Most of your references are old. While some old references are needed to preview the problem statement, literature review should focus on recent works. 

·      Add 1-2 sentences extra in your each literature discussion outlining their findings, shortcomings, and how the present study can bridge the gaps. 

·      L48-58: Add more information on the numerical methods, computer program etc you mentioned. There should be a specific name for each method/program. 

·      L59-61: It is actually not clear since your literature discussion is ambiguous and did not focus on recent works. 

·      L64: “Scholars lack….” This is a strong statement since there is no evidence reported yet. 

·      L75-89: Literature review begins again without any conclusive remarks. Authors should consider merging them in the introduction, perhaps in a different paragraph. 

·      The present study considered kaolin and quartz sand for the test, but can the authors justify if similar test can be conducted for high swelling clay such as bentonite, which may have liquid limit up to 500%?

·      Physico-chemical properties of tested soils need to be provided in a tabular format for the readers to understand. See the following manuscripts how they reported:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106193

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2018.09.027

·      There should be a justification statement why all the tested soils had moisture content between 30% - 36%. Is it because of optimum moisture content?

·      All figures and subfigures need to be referred in the text. For example, Fig.6a, 6b etc. Same feedback for the other figures where applicable. 

·      L189-L191: Explain why it produced and why it did not. 

·      L199-200: Please correct and re-write the sentence. Hard to understand. 

·      Fig.11 caption has a spacing problem.

·      Fig.12 requires more discussion, particularly comparing with 0.1g, 0.2g results.

·      Information on Figs.15-17 are quite brief and do not signify the outcome of the study. I would recommend describing each figure in each paragraph, and later made a comprehensive comparison before the conclusion.

·      Is there any validation to support your findings? How would the readers be convinced that your findings are accurate. If they are accurate, you also need to demonstrate the accuracy level. Any hypothesis to support your statement?

·      L321-L346: Those points should go to a different section named “Limitations of the study”, before conclusion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have incorporated most of the comments. But I have comments on the manuscript that will need to be incorporated.

The quality of the figures will need to be improved. 

Figures 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 9 are of poor quality - needs improvement

Example of correction of Figure 1, 5, 9 in the file

Measurement procedure for sensor wiring (chain) - missing

Example of measurement chain in file.

I recommend that the Conclusion and Discussion section be changed to Conclusion. 

The authors confront the partial results with the data published with the three authors. The discussion in subsections 5.3 and 5.4 is insufficient. The authors of the manuscript are recommended to supplement the discussion with the actual scientific results of the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have revised the manuscript which have proved the quality of the writing and overall presentations. I have some minor corrections which need to be addressed and actioned before the acceptance of the manuscript. 

·      Some of the citations need to be in correct format. For example, L82 says Xing H et al. (2018). It is recommended to write Xing et al. (2018) (based on the surname). Please revise accordingly wherever applicable. L87 has the same issue. 

·      Fig.9(f) is of poor quality. Please consider adding a better image. If the image is not originally captured by the authors, proper reference/credits need to be provided. 

·      Fig.11 caption still has the spacing issue, though authors responded saying those were corrected. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx