The Determination of Pullout Parameters for Sand with a Geogrid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article evaluate the influence of the confining stress and the tensile strength of a geogrid reinforcement in the pullout test, and propose a reasonable method for obtaining practical pullout parameters. 

The authors correctly positioned the research in the current state of knowledge and indicated the novelty of the research. The description of the test stand and the method of conducting research allows for a complete reproduction of the research. The obtained results were correctly visualized and widely discussed. The presented results allowed for drawing accurate conclusions.

I think the article is ready for publication in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments on the paper. We revised the paper appropriately. Please find the attached file for the response to reviewer's comments.

 

Thank you so much!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript discusses the concept of designing Mechanically Stabilized EArth walls. The aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of the confining stress and the tensile strength of the geogrid reinforcement.

1. Please provide references for your equations.

2. Please give a thorough discussion on the different elements in Fig. 2.

3. For the caption in Fig. 3, please describe Fig. 3(a) and (b).

4. Please provide a reference for the Unified Soil Classification System.

5. Some grammar is incorrect.

6. For Figs. 5-13 please lower the maximum value of axis as it will improve the visibility of the data. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments on the paper. We revised the paper appropriately. Please find the attached file for the response to reviewer's comments.

 

Thank you so much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with an experimental program aimed at measuring the frictional characteristics between the soil and geogrids using pullout test. The authors are encouraged to consider the following comments and re-submit their work for consideration.

1. The friction stress-confining stress curves in Figures 8 and 10 are highly non-linear. This may result in large uncertainty of the friction angle obtained from the curve fitting. The authors are encouraged to add the value of R-squared for the fitted curves. More importantly, the validity and reliability of the measured pullout frictional angles are required by other approaches, such as the direct shear tests. The authors are thus encouraged to perform direct shear tests to validate the measured results from the pullout tests.
2. Many key references are missed for the literature review. The authors are encouraged to add relevant references to support their claims.
3. The reviewer believes that the stress-strain curve shown in Figure 5 and 6 under the low tension strength are problematic. The maximum pullout force under the confining stresses of 60, 680, and 100 kPa are too close to each other with the value at 30 kPa even higher than that at 60 kPa. The authors need to check this part.
4. The language of the article needs to be improved.

Author Response

Please find the attached reply to reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very well written, very well exposed and
organized. I congratulate the authors for the writing and
composition of the article.
Only minor revisions are necessary. Please consider the
indications suggested in the attached .pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attached reply to reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article evaluate the influence of the confining stress and the tensile strength of a geogrid reinforcement in the pullout test, and propose a reasonable method for obtaining practical pullout parameters. 

However, the authors have not avoided some errors.

1.First of all, the state of knowledge should be supported by citations. In particular, there is a lack of literature references in the Introduction, but also in Chapter 4 there are references to other studies without citations. In chapter 3 there are information about tested material but there is no information about the source of information about properties. The number of literature references should be significantly improved.

2. The introduction should contain information on the current state of the research and current citations. Moreover, the novelty of the research should be emphasized.

3. There is a change in formatting in the introduction and chapter 3.3. Formatting should be aligned with the right one.

4. In line 289, there is "13.99rictional", in line 311 "13.94tress" and in line 363, there is "frpullout". Please correct the mistakes.

5. In chapter 4.3 figures of drawings should be added in which the discussed data are visible, so that the reader can follow the text more easily.

6. Please add an explanation why the measuring points deviate so significantly from the curve for Figures 8 and 10.

To summarize, this paper has the potential to be interesting but more work is necessary. Therefore, I recommend a major revision.

Author Response

Please find the attached reply to reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors added a number of new references (Lines 58-66, 73-80) in the revised manuscript. However, there is little discussion about the added references. There are also many redundancies and confusion in the added references. The authors need to summarize the results and limitations in the previous studies and clarify why their work in this manuscript is meaningful and what is their improvement compared to the previous studies. Therefore, the introduction needs to be significantly revised.  

Also, the conclusion needs to be rewritten to reflect the main results of this manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments. Please see the reply to the reviewer' comment attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors introduced the amendments proposed by me, so I think that the article can be published.
Only minor errors crept into the text, line 78 is "Seiral" instead of "Seira" and lines 81 to 85 are smaller in size compared to the whole text.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments. Please see the reply to the reviewer' comment attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf