Study on the Influence of Groundwater Variation on the Bearing Capacity of Sandy Shallow Foundation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor;

In this study, the authors have studied the influence of water level change on the bearing capacity of shallow foundations by combining model test and numerical simulation. The overall structure of the paper is okay. However, there is a big concern that authors should address.

-The big problem is about the linguistic aspect. The current version of the manuscript is unacceptable; a major revision to the linguistic aspect is strongly advised. The reviewer below highlighted some points that should be covered along with some examples. To begin with, the reviewer has noticed an excessive amount of repetition of the preposition (of) in some sentences like ”The form and mechanism of the influence of the change of water table …. “. In addition, there has been a misuse of some punctuation marks throughout this piece of research especially commas. These mistakes can be seen when listing. The authors should bear in mind that when listing three items or more the commas positing should be like item1, item 2, and item3. Concerning the other cases of using commas, the reviewer felt like the authors put them thoughtlessly without considering the functions of phrases and clauses, which without any doubt resulted in an incoherent piece of writing. Furthermore, a number of mistakes concerning verb tenses have been detected, for example "Pei et al. [15,16] propose ......". Another point to highlight would be the scarcity of conjunctions usage which significantly created some confusion when reading the manuscript. Finally, there is the misuse of prepositions and articles like “the groundwater” which is normally without the definite article because it is uncountable. Last but not least, the subjectivity of the authors since they used the personal pronoun” we” in many cases. Overall, The manuscript is haphazardly written; the authors must go through the manuscript word by word. Coauthors can play an important role to improve its quality. English language must be significantly improved.

-The reference format is not consistent with the journal’s requirement (Please see https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references)

-The authors should carefully check through the editorial issues and proofread it before resubmission.

-At the methodology, the authors are suggested to add a flowchart of the overall research, then introduce each part of the flowchart, which makes the readers catch the key point easily.

-The discussions of the obtained results are not carefully highlighted. Generally, they stress at least some of the following elements : (1) The significance of results, (what is the scientific message that the results addresses, what they show, without repeating the results), (2) The inner validation of results: (whether the results demonstrate the hypotheses of the study, and accomplish the objectives of the research), (3) The external validation of results (compare the results with those of similar studies carried out elsewhere, which are identified in the scientific literature), (4) The importance of the results, and (5) Limitations and future research.

-the authors should revise the numbers of subsections "4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5".

 Summary:

 

This is strongly recommended for major revision.

Author Response

Thanks. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

The authors examined the effect of groundwater variation on the deformation behavior under different loading conditions of bearing capacity of shallow foundations. They set up novel experiments with a water pressure control.

 There are some issues that the authors should consider in the revision round.

Please consider the following comments.

General Comments:

Please rephrase the sentences in lines 14-17, 30-33, 52-53, 122-125 (which including), 175-176 (…changes in the percentage of).

In line 18, novel(ty)?

In line 22, ….as the water level cycles increase.

In line 25, ….to the change in the groundwater level.

“Buildings in cities along rivers or coastal are…….” may be changed in the line 28.

Remove dot before parenthesis in line 31.

Researchers in line 46 (Prandtl, Terzaghi, Meyerhoff, Hansen and Vesic) should be properly cited.

In lines 50, 53, 58, 207, small a.

In line 54, which depth?

In line 57, soils.

In line 169, tests.

In line 200, experiments.

Please include (,respectively) in line 173.

It would be better to use “as” throughout the manuscript when explaining the increase and decrease relations of the parameters.

“foundation bearing capacity” is repetitive in line 60.

In line 61, please consider formulae/proposal, etc. instead of calculation.

In line 229, Moore-Coulomb?

Remove “is” in line 242.

Appropriate tenses should be used throughout the manuscript. The usage of present and past tenses in the same sentence may not be suitable. Please revise them, is necessary.

In Fig 1 soil water level should be given. Water level is measured from?

Captions of Figs 3 and 4 should be more explanatory.

English language writing of the manuscript should be checked and revised.

In Figs 3 and 4, bearing pressure or bearing capacity? P-S should be mentioned in the body text of the manuscript.

 

The authors stated in line 63 “The problem of fluid-solid interaction is not fully considered.” If it is one of the novelties of their study, they should strongly emphasize it and point out the recent findings of the recent studies.

In line 65, a new paragraph was included to introduce the quasi-distributed FBG strain sensors and concluded these sensors can be applied in various engineering applications. How could the authors connect this paragraph with previous paragraph? Is fluid-soil interaction fully considered in this monitoring technique? How can these sensors contribute to considering the fluid-soil interaction in the previously-introduced formula?

The review understands the problem and agrees with the authors. However, similar problems may exist around the world (The author reviewed similar articles. It may be in Singapore). They should be introduced in the Introduction section.

The soil parameters given in Table 1 should be revised. Because, the material is sandy soil, but the cohesive stress should be less than given. Material classification may be checked in this stage. May it be classified in silty-sand or clayey sand? On the other hand, the dimension of stress is kPa. In the Table, force may be corrected.

In the section 2.3, a new variable named water level cycle times and cycle-index were introduced. Their definitions should be given in the section. Difference?

It is clear whether the measurements are taken after the drainage of the water. Drainage of the water may deteriorate the deformed soil.

Is it a well-known condition that the bearing capacity decreases as the water level increases? How did the authors contribute to calculate or modify the bearing capacity equation considering the ground water level rises? It should be clearly explained since the authors introduce this problem in the Introduction section. It can also be discussed in the Discussion section.

Section 2.5 may be changed as Analysis of results.

Limitations of the experiments should be discussed.

The paragraph in lines 204-213 is not given in a suitable section. It may be moved into a suitable section of the manuscript.

The sub-sections of 3. Numerical analysis should be checked. Not 4!

The first paragraph of COMSOL Numerical model should be rephrased.

Fluid density in Eq 1 is not properly introduced in line 225. Divergence in Eq. 1 should also be introduced. What about dot product?

S in Eq. 1 and Figs 3 and 4 are confusing. They should be unique.

Is (.) dot product in Eq. 3 and 4?

How was the reliability measured?

What about the effect of water level fluctuation forms? Differences of 3,13,16; 7, 14, 17 and 11, 15, 18? Do they cause uncertainty effect of water level?

 Discussion section should be enlarged containing a comprehensive comparison.

Conclusion section should be summarization of the previous sections. Future works, limitations, contributions to literature, advantages or disadvantages of the study should be presented in the section.

Author Response

Thanks. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The scientific amount in this paper is relatively low.

The paper's English needs to be revised significantly and better to have an editing service.

The discussion is also relatively shallow in this manuscript. The introduction must be written to highlight the importance of the study in a concise manner.

Author Response

Thanks. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has been fully revised in the first go-round. The authors have fully answered all of the reviewer’s comments. However, it still needs a minor revision.

1-Fig 1 is unclear

2-The discussions (discussions, not conclusion) are still too short compared to the size of the article. Generally, they stress at least some of the following elements : (1) The significance of results, (what is the scientific message that the results addresses, what they show, without repeating the results), (2) The inner validation of results: (whether the results demonstrate the hypotheses of the study, and accomplish the objectives of the research), (3) The external validation of results (compare the results with those of similar studies carried out elsewhere, which are identified in the scientific literature), (4) The importance of the results, and (5) Limitations and future research. The authors have to understand that these analytical portions are the essence of an article, and without strong discussions, the article lacks much scientific value.

3-The reference format is still not consistent with the journal’s requirements. For example reference 1:

Ge, S.P.; Yao, X.J. Response characteristics of pore pressure in soils nearby metro tunnel due to train vibration loading. J. Eng. Geol. 2015, 23, 1093-1099. Doi:10.13544/j.cnki.jeg.2015.06.009.

Please see https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In line 159, small r (refer)

The authors defined the sand used in this study is silty sand and the cohesion is found to be really large. However, in Table 1, sandy soil should be revised as silty-sand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

accepted

Author Response

Thanks.