Field Characterization of Dynamic Response of Geocell-Reinforced Aeolian Sand Subgrade under Live Traffic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The piece of research reported in the paper is relevant and exciting. However, several areas need clarification and improvement.

1. The topic needs to capture the relevance and content of the paper forcefully. You may wish to consider the following: "Field Characterization of Dynamic Response of Geocell-Reinforced Aeolian Sand Subgrade Under Live Traffic."

2. The abstract does not indicate the research problem, objectives, or practical engineering relevance of the findings. Also, no recommendations have been made. Could you address these vital omissions to strengthen the paper?

3. It is essential to provide line numbers to make the review easier. 

4. On Page 1, Paragraph 2, DHT appears. What does this stand for?

5. On Page 2, it is essential to introduce Figure 1. Mentioning "the enclosed geocell..." is very confusing. 

6. The paper's objective, as mentioned in the last paragraph of Page 2, must tally with the indication in the abstract. 

7. On Page 4, the sentence "The research findings suggest..." is a misfit. It sounds like a research finding where it does not belong.

8. In Tables 2 and 3, the second "Vertical Layout" column title should read "Horizontal Layout."

9. On Page 10, the last paragraph of Section 3.0 is a misfit. It needs to be clarified, as its relevance is unsure.

10. All equations must have numbers and also need an introduction. 

11. The paper must be thoroughly checked for problematic English language issues. There are several incomplete sentences and complex constructions. Tenses are also improper in some instances. For example, on Page 9, the sentence " Calculate the boundary..." indicates an instruction, and the authors' intention is unclear.

12. The paper uses some terminologies inconsistently, which can be confusing to readers. For example, using aeolian sand and wind-cumulus soils is confusing, and it is essential to use terminologies consistently.

13. On Page 15, 'regrets' is better replaced with 'limitations.' On the same page, the line "Determine the practical life..." is unclear, as it is an incomplete sentence.

14. The conclusions are a mere regurgitation of the findings already presented in the body of the paper. They do not provide critical takeaways from the study.

15. The results were nicely presented and thoroughly discussed, but the discussion was silent on the practical implications of the findings. It is essential to address this limitation to let readers know the significance of the study.

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer 1:

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Field test on vibration response of geocell reinforced aeolian sand roadbed under traffic load” (ID: 2111950). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

1. The topic needs to capture the relevance and content of the paper forcefully. You may wish to consider the following: "Field Characterization of Dynamic Response of Geocell-Reinforced Aeolian Sand Subgrade Under Live Traffic."

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The topic has been modified as you requested.

2. The abstract does not indicate the research problem, objectives, or practical engineering relevance of the findings. Also, no recommendations have been made. Could you address these vital omissions to strengthen the paper?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the relevant content in the abstract.

3. It is essential to provide line numbers to make the review easier. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added line numbers to the manuscript.

4. On Page 1, Paragraph 2, DHT appears. What does this stand for?

Response: The main components of DHT are fly ash, red mud and coal gangue, and its properties are powdery inorganic materials. DHT is a technique based on geological theory that utilizes mineral components in soil and condensate components in soil condensate. This technique promotes soil condensation and lithification through the formation of polymers and reasonable compatibility of diagenetic elements, so that ordinary soil becomes capable of basic engineering mechanical properties.

5. On Page 2, it is essential to introduce Figure 1. Mentioning "the enclosed geocell..." is very confusing. 

Response: Here is an introduction to the properties of the geocell itself. A closed geocell is a geocell that restricts the filler to a geocell unit. As a result, fillers in one geocell cell cannot be moved laterally to another geocell cell.

6. The paper's objective, as mentioned in the last paragraph of Page 2, must tally with the indication in the abstract. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made the modification according to your requirement.

7. On Page 4, the sentence "The research findings suggest..." is a misfit. It sounds like a research finding where it does not belong.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have inserted relevant determiners into the sentence.

8. In Tables 2 and 3, the second "Vertical Layout" column title should read "Horizontal Layout."

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We are sorry to have made such a mistake. And the error has been fixed.

9. On Page 10, the last paragraph of Section 3.0 is a misfit. It needs to be clarified, as its relevance is unsure.

Response: When the road is not paved, the road structure is incomplete. The road structure is complete after the paving. After paving the road surface, the test results are closer to the real conditions.

10. All equations must have numbers and also need an introduction. 

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made changes in the manuscript.

11. The paper must be thoroughly checked for problematic English language issues. There are several incomplete sentences and complex constructions. Tenses are also improper in some instances. For example, on Page 9, the sentence " Calculate the boundary..." indicates an instruction, and the authors' intention is unclear.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We feel sorry for our poor writing.  However, we have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript.  And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable to you.

12. The paper uses some terminologies inconsistently, which can be confusing to readers. For example, using aeolian sand and wind-cumulus soils is confusing, and it is essential to use terminologies consistently.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have checked and corrected the terminology in the manuscript.

13. On Page 15, 'regrets' is better replaced with 'limitations.' On the same page, the line "Determine the practical life..." is unclear, as it is an incomplete sentence.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We feel sorry for our poor writing.  However, we have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript.  And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable to you.

14. The conclusions are a mere regurgitation of the findings already presented in the body of the paper. They do not provide critical takeaways from the study.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have made appropriate changes in the manuscript.

15. The results were nicely presented and thoroughly discussed, but the discussion was silent on the practical implications of the findings. It is essential to address this limitation to let readers know the significance of the study.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion.We have made the changes according to your requirements in the conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, a field test method was adopted to study the dynamic performance of geocell-reinforced aeolian sand as an upper roadbed fill. This research has significant engineering significance, and the manuscript is also well written. However, some major modifications are required before the manuscript can be accepted:

 

(1)    In the introduction: What are the scientific problems when using aeolian sand to pave the upper roadbed? In addition, the author did not comprehensively review the literature on the application of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering：

Characterise the geomembrane and geotextile type on the interface creep behaviour at dry condition. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 2022, 50(2): 312–322. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.11.008.

 

(2)    In Section 2.1, what is the purpose of the author to set up two different test schemes?

 

(3)    In Fig. 3, whether the gradation of aerolian sand and grailly soils is good?

 

(4)    In Section 3.2, ‘The driving speed and the actual vibration amplitude are about linear, as shown in Fig 6. Actual vibration amplitude tends to grow gradually as driving speed increases.’ Can the author provide other favorable explanations for this phenomenon?

 

(5)    In Section 4: The discussion part is a little simple. Can you discuss it in depth?

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewer 2:

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Field test on vibration response of geocell reinforced aeolian sand roadbed under traffic load” (ID: 2111950). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

(1)    In the introduction: What are the scientific problems when using aeolian sand to pave the upper roadbed? In addition, the author did not comprehensively review the literature on the application of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering：

Characterise the geomembrane and geotextile type on the interface creep behaviour at dry condition. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 2022, 50(2): 312–322. DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.11.008.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Aeolian sand has no cohesiveness, loose surface, poor gradation, difficult compaction, and difficulty forming a strong whole. Therefore, it is necessary to consider using simple and practical construction technology or appropriate reinforcement materials to build roadbed. These methods can make full use of local materials and reduce project costs. The subgrade height should consider the strength, keeping the subgrade dry when the capillary water rises, settling after construction, meeting the minimum antifreeze layer thickness culvert silt removal requirements and other factors. The subgrade should maintain a certain height, but not too high. The subgrade height is affected by the vibration response of moving load. In addition, the application of geosynthetic materials to geotechnical engineering has been added in the manuscript.

(2)    In Section 2.1, what is the purpose of the author to set up two different test schemes?

Response: This paper aims to verify the effectiveness of geocell reinforcement of aeolian sand instead of traditional gravel soil as roadbed filler by studying the dynamic characteristics of geocell reinforcement of aeolian sand under a real driving wheel load. Under the same actual load, the dynamic response of geocell-reinforced aeolian sand and gravel soil is compared. We evaluated the effect of geocell reinforcement on aeolian sand from the perspective of energy attenuation and working depth. The research results can provide a basis for geocell reinforcement to replace aeolian sand with gravel soil.

(3)    In Fig. 3, whether the gradation of aerolian sand and grailly soils is good?

Response: Aeolian sand particles belong to fine sand, and sand grain composition is naturally poor gradation. The gradation of gravel soils is good. In order to ensure the reliability of the test, gravel soil with good gradation was selected.

(4)    In Section 3.2, ‘The driving speed and the actual vibration amplitude are about linear, as shown in Fig 6. Actual vibration amplitude tends to grow gradually as driving speed increases.’ Can the author provide other favorable explanations for this phenomenon?

Response: Changing the speed of the truck will cause changes in the vibration response of the site. The higher the truck speed, the greater the vibration response. The reason is that the faster the truck travels, the higher the energy of the vibration source and the greater the response, all other things being equal.

 (5)    In Section 4: The discussion part is a little simple. Can you discuss it in depth?

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. The discussion has been revised in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has made extensive revisions to the previous manuscript, and I am willing to accept this manuscript in present form.