Comparative Investigation of Axial Bearing Performance and Mechanism of Continuous Flight Auger Pile in Weathered Granitic Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript presents one comparative investigation of installation effect of continuous flight auger pile on bearing performance in weathered granitic soils.

This manuscript should be published after some minor revisions:

1.  Rearrange the keywords so that they are in alphabetical order.

 

2.  Introduction: Aims and structure of the work should be defined better.

 

3.  Results: all the graphics need to be changed.

-       The legends need to be similar; the authors put some inside of the graphic and another’s outside. Please change.

-       Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10 are of poor quality.

 

4.  Conclusion:  should point outs novelty, limitations and future work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for having our manuscript reviewed in a timely and professional manner and giving us opportunity to revise the manuscript. The authors have carefully revised the original manuscript based on your comments. A point-by-point response is attached. Any change made in the revised manuscript has been highlighted with yellow color. Please see the attachment.

Thanks to the reviewer again for helping us promoting our study. If there are further suggestions for revising the article, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] (the corresponding author).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors-in-Chief:

 

Journal: Buildings (ISSN 2075-5309)

Manuscript ID: Buildings-2627704

 

The paper deals with " Comparative Investigation of Installation Effect of Continuous Flight Auger Pile on Bearing Performance in Weathered Granitic Soils". The paper is worth publishing; however, the following concerns should be addressed in revising the manuscript:

 

Major Comments:

 

Comments are attached to the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for having our manuscript reviewed in a timely and professional manner and giving us opportunity to revise the manuscript. The authors have carefully revised the original manuscript based on your comments. A point-by-point response is attached. Any change made in the revised manuscript has been highlighted with yellow color. Please see the attachment.

Thanks to the reviewer again for helping us promoting our study. If there are further suggestions for revising the article, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] (the corresponding author).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewers' comments:

Manuscript number: buildings-2627704

Title: Comparative Investigation of Installation Effect of Continuous Flight Auger Pile on Bearing Performance in Weathered Granitic Soils.

 

Comments: 

The manuscript reported on Comparative Investigation of Installation Effect of Continuous Flight Auger Pile on Bearing Performance in Weathered Granitic Soils. The manuscript needs a detailed editing. It cannot be recommended for publication in the present form. I hope the following points would be helpful for the authors.

 

The authors need to consider the following comments

- In the Abstract, the authors need to improve with more specific short results and conclusions, i.e. academic novelty or technical advantages.

- Keywords: add more suitable and short keywords.

- Introduction part is lagging the previous studies on. Literature review is not updated in the manuscript. More recent literature need to be added.

- Please provides the references for all equations and formula.

- Figure 4 - is not clear make clear.

- 3.2. Evolution of axial stress and shaft resistance – should be improve.

- 3.3. Shaft and base resistances in different soil layer – should be improve.

- Figure 9 - is not clear make clear.

- Main findings should also be provided in conclusions.

- References: author should use order and there are recent references in 2022-2023 treating the same subject, you can use.

- Make all references in same format for volume number, page number and journal name, because it is difficult to searching and reading.

- Furthermore, they should add the graphical abstract, it is use full to readers.

- Minor English corrections are required throughout the manuscript.

So that I recommended this manuscript to major revision and for future process.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for having our manuscript reviewed in a timely and professional manner and giving us opportunity to revise the manuscript. The authors have carefully revised the original manuscript based on your comments. A point-by-point response is attached. Any change made in the revised manuscript has been highlighted with yellow color. Please see the attachment.

Thanks to the reviewer again for helping us promoting our study. If there are further suggestions for revising the article, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] (the corresponding author).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

The revised paper with titled “Comparative Investigation of Axial Bearing Performance and Mechanism of Continuous Flight Auger Pile in Weathered Granitic Soils” The authors responded to all comments and may be accepted for publication.

Greetings

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required