Effects of Heavy Rainfall on Shallow Foundations in Bukit Timah Granite in Singapore
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I’ve read your manuscript with great interest, and I’ve found it example of very interesting innovative, and stimulating research. Indeed, global climate changes raise many questions for engineering geology, it adequately solutions should be found. Your work demonstrates how to do this really well. However, two significant additions should be done, and I also have additional question.
1) Geographical (with emphasis on climate) and geological settings of the study area should be provided together with the related citations and figures. Also photos illustrating the study area and the examined soil should be provided.
2) There should be section “Discussion” where your results are interpreted with attention to what do they mean in general and which practical solutions can be done. Different scenarios of local climate changes should be considered briefly.
3) I wonder whether granite properties also matter. What about networks of natural fissures and degree of weathering?
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the constructive comments and suggestions from the reviewer. The authors have carefully reviewed and attempted to address all the comments. The manuscript has been revised following the suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the responses are highlighted in RED.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The reviewer reviewed the manuscript (MS) titled “Effects of heavy rainfall on shallow foundations in Bukit Timah Granite in Singapore” in detail to meet the scientific requirements. I would like to recommend major revision to improve the manuscript considering the issues listed below. After revision, I would like to re-review the MS.
General Comments:
Authors stated in Abstract that “In particular, Singapore suffers from floods and rising of coastlines.” General results of this problem met in daily life (traffic delay, leeve damages etc.) should be written briefly.
Introduction section is very short. It should be enlarged avoiding local attempts and considering international attempts since it is an international platform. What is the solution procedure for neighboring countries? It should be discussed.
What is the literature background of FEM and SIGMA/W in the topic?
What is novelty of the study?
The authors should present more information on Brinch Hansen 80% Criterion and Chin-Kondner Extrapolation Method.
The authors state that “The studies showed that the change in matric suction is affected by the rainfall duration, rainfall intensity, initial groundwater conditions, and hydraulic properties of soil, which in turn affect the settlement response heavily.” Is it surprising?
It would be better to present by sketching the mechanism of seepage and runoff characteristics of rainfall. Some characteristics such as matric suction should be demonstrated.
In Line 123, 139, 192 please check references.
Please give references in Figs 2 and 3 captions. The authors should also check the editorial policy on the permissions of the figures to be used in this manuscript. Please clarify this issue.
Please give Table 1 reference in line 122.
Where is Table 2 in the text?
Is the rainfall data adapted in the study a fictive or provided from a responsible authority? Do they correspond to return periods?
In hydrological modelling, soil moisture accounting model (SMA) is used for continuous modelling to consider effective precipitation. What do the authors think about this model? Can the results be coupled with SMA model?
Authors state that “The discovery from this study is used to recommend an alternative numerical modelling methodology to further study the impacts of transient rainfall on soils and shallow foundations.” How do the authors justify their findings? How do the authors determine the FEM gives outstanding results? So, the results need to be validated.
Discussion section should be included and all the results should be discussed.
Conclusion section is not a real conclusion section. It a summarization of the results. General conclusion, recommendations, future works should be given in the section.
English writing should be improved.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the constructive comments and suggestions from the reviewer. The authors have carefully reviewed and attempted to address all the comments. The manuscript has been revised following the suggestions. In the revised manuscript, the responses are highlighted in RED.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I appreciate your improvements, but these seem to be insufficient to me:
1) The area's characteristics should be characterized comprehensively (with citations and possible photos) in a special section "Geographical and Geological Setting" between Introduction and Methodology. Without this information, it is very challenging to imagine the area and to follow your storytelling.
2) Discussion should be enlarged. At least, two paragraphs are necessary and the literature should be cited there. This requirement is a norm in major international journals.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the constructive comments and suggestions. Again, the authors have carefully reviewed and attempted to address all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised manuscript, the responses are highlighted in BLUE.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The reviewer re-reviewed the manuscript (MS) titled “Effects of heavy rainfall on shallow foundations in Bukit Timah Granite in Singapore”. The reviewer would like to thank for considering the recommendations partially. In this stage, I would like to recommend major revision to improve the manuscript considering the issues listed below. After revision, I would like to re-re-review the MS.
General Comments:
Introduction section should be enlarged considering FEM, SIGMA/W studies on the shallow foundations.
Materials should be introduced regarding capabilities, theoretical background, availability etc.
Novelty of the study should be clearly defined after discussing the gap in literature in last paragraph of Introduction section.
The authors should present more information on Chin-Kondner Extrapolation Method.
Authors agreed to sketch infiltration process to show some characteristics. Figure numbers were updated, but no figure were included. Pay attention Fig 4.
Figure and table references in the text should be checked throughout the manuscript.
Did the authors consider that 100% of rainfall infiltrated/percolated? It should be clarified.
The authors found SMA continuous hydrological model to be useful and valuable for incorporating with shallow foundations in future. However, it was not included in the manuscript. It should be discussed in detail.
Authors revised the validation process in Line 26-27. However, it is expected to deeply discuss in Discussion and conclude in Conclusion sections.
Please avoid using fully same sentences in Abstract.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their gratitude for the constructive comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Again, the authors have carefully reviewed and attempted to address all the comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised manuscript, the responses are highlighted in BLUE.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
