Experimental Investigation on Failure Mechanisms of HDPE Welded Geocell Junctions under Different Clamping Distances

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Many figures are blurred. Please improve them.

2. The standard of the test should be discussed clearly. 

3. Fig. 4 needs a reference.

4. Why have 2.2.1-2.2.4? They can be combined.

5. Please add more descriptions to Fig. 5.

6. Please find a way to make Fig. 16 to be easier to understand.

7. Conclusion is too long.

8. Several previous works are similar to the present study. Please add them more in the introduction part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript deals with investigating the failure mechanisms of High Density Poly Ethylene Geocell welded junctions with different clamping distances. The manuscript is well written and will benefit the practicing engineers. The following technical comments apply:

1.       The authors must provide a schematic diagram wherein they should clearly show various clamping distances for better understanding of the context. This can be included along with Fig 3. Even though different distances are mentioned in Fig 4, they do not implicate the rationale behind chosen distances.

2.       What is the practical importance of varying clamping distances for a given geocell and how does it change the standard understanding of the material? Under what field conditions, the proposed study helps in better interpretation of results? These aspects must be explained in detail while revising the manuscript

3.        The decrease in tensile and shear strength values (i.e., 4.5 and 14%) are not that significant as we usually employ factor of safety concept while designing with geocells. Under such circumstances, what is the need for the study and what is the uniqueness of the study which will benefit geosynthetic community?

4.       What are the different types of tests which the authors intend to standardize relying on the results obtained from the study? And Why? These aspects must be clearly mentioned in details under the section ‘Practical Takeouts of the study’ while revising the manuscript.

5.       The quality of figurers reported in Fig’s 5, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 16 must be enhanced by redrawing. The legends are difficult to read and interpret. Kindly ensure a minimum of 300 DPI resolution is maintained for each of these figures while exporting them.

6.       Kindly redraft the conclusions by highlighting the qualitative and quantitative research findings.

 

7.       Cross check the references cited in the running text as well as those appearing in the references section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf