Ultimate Limit State Reliability-Based Optimization of MSE Wall Considering External Stability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is well written and contributes to the field of knowledge. 

Author Response

The authors are highly grateful to the respectable reviewer for the encouraging remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

RBO techniques had gained significant popularity and authors have used the technique to provide access for practicing engineers to design MSE walls with low cost and high accuracy.

All the parameters considered for the design satisfied the requirements of AASHTO

 

Author Response

The authors are highly grateful to the respectable reviewer for the encouraging remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A brief summary:

The manuscript "Ultimate Limit State Reliability-Based Optimization of MSE 2 Wall Considering External Stability" by Z. Mahmood, M. U. Qureshi, Z. A. Memon and Q. B. alias Imran Latif is touching upon an interesting topic as it includes the reliability optimization of the mechanically stability of earth walls. The research work presents the study of optimum design of the mechanically stability of earth walls using constrained optimization considering the external stability.

Overall comment:

From my point of view, the manuscript fits into the scope of the journal and the topic is relevant to the readers.

After the reconsideration of below described facts by the authors, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

Specific comments:

Section- Graphical abstract: The graphical abstract is missing, please provide adequate graphical abstract.

Section - Conclusions:

The contributions in the conclusion need to be revised by giving future research opportunities that arise from the paper, which is absent in the study.

Author Response

The authors are highly grateful to the respectable reviewer for the encouraging remarks. The point-wise response to specific comments of the reviewer are as follows.

 

Sr. No.	Reviewer Comments	Authors’ response
	The graphical abstract is missing, please provide adequate graphical abstract.	Thank you for reviewer’s comment. The graphical abstract template is not available; therefore, the authors did not include the graphical abstract.
	The contributions in the conclusion need to be revised by giving future research opportunities that arise from the paper, which is absent in the study.	Thank you for reviewer’s comment. The authors have amended the respective section.   Refer to line number 366 to 368 (page 15)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and the paper is very well structured. The novelty of the paper is well stated and the question that authors tried to address in their research has been fully addressed. However, the following are required to be considered by the authors before the paper being accepted. 

• The introduction is very short and need to be extended
• The current conclusions needs to be amended as it is not presented properly. Therefore, authors are firstly required to state the main aim of the current research at the conclusion and then listing the main findings.

Author Response

The authors are highly grateful to the respectable reviewer for the encouraging remarks. The point-wise response to specific comments of the reviewer are as follows.

 

Sr. No.	Reviewer Comments	Authors’ response
	The introduction is very short and need to be extended	Thank you for reviewer’s comment. The relevant section is revised as per comment.   Refer to line numbers 47 – 57, 62 – 63, 78 – 81 and 87 respectively on page 2.
	The current conclusions needs to be amended as it is not presented properly. Therefore, authors are firstly required to state the main aim of the current research at the conclusion and then listing the main findings.	Thank you for reviewer’s comment. The authors have amended the respective section.   Refer to line number 343 to 348 on page 14 & 15.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf