Numerical Investigations of Pile Group Foundations under Different Pile Length Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article realizes numerical simulation using special FLAC3D software for mechanical tasks in special pile group constructions. The advantage of the article is presents many cases of numerical simulations for different cases of pressure for piles. In my opinion disadvantage of the article is the poor description of details using FLAC3D software. The authors mention that the software used finite element models (See lines 173,241,246,336). However finite element models can be different. It would be better to describe these methods and software in more detail. Also, it is recommended to add the link for the official site of the FLAC3D software.

There are such notices 1. In the title of chapter 3 should be Model instead of Mode (see line 111)

2. Some detailed descriptions of software should be added to Chapter 3.

3. in line 117 the authors mention Rhino software and in line 118 HyperMesh software. It should be more detail described for which these software were used. The link for the official site of the HyperMesh and Rhino software should be added.

4. in line 119 "0.5 and a maximum size of 3" dimension for values 0,5 and 3 should be added.

5. The same notice for line 125 "of 25.9". Also "31.4 and 30.9,"see line 131, and 26.4 in line 129.

6. Rhino with Griddle line 114 and Rhino with HyperMesh line 115 should have detailed description

7. "The mesh type selected is Tetra", see line 119. What is Tetra should be described.

8. In Table 1 value "friction" should have dimension.

9. Figure 4 a and b on axis Y should have a larger scale because the plots are too close to each other

10. The same notice to Figures 6 and 7

11. "FOS of the model" see line 317. The model for FOS and formula for calculation of FOS should be added.

12. The description of FOS in the conclusion see line 359 also should be added. Because it is unclear what factor is it.

After rewriting the article can be published

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I have modified the article according to your suggestion, please reply me if there is any mistake.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is a set of Numerical investigations of pile group foundation under different pile length condition. An interesting work. Here are some comments

1 In terms of material constitutive modelling it apperas that the sandy soil has a fairly considerable amount of cohesion. Subsequently, apart from Mohr Coulomb model a Modified Cam Clay model could be applicable. The authors are invited to enter a relative comment and cite the following

A1 Kavvadas and Amorosi 2000 A constitutive model for structured soils Geotechnique

A2 Savvides A A and Papadrakakis M 2021 A computational study for the uncertainty quantification of failure of clays with a Modified Cam Clay Yield Criterion SN Applied Sciences.

2 Give details about the loading in numerical analysis. If it is static or dynamic, the solution algorithm etc. Also refer to the FLAC documentation for them

3 Delear the piles 1-9 that appear in the Figures.

4 The Figures must be bigger for being more readible 

5 In chapter 2 a comparison with the classic Broms theory of lateral strength of piles would be beneficial for the manuscript to emlighten its superiority. Two sentences are enough

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ΝΑ

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I have modified the article according to the reviewer's suggestions. If there is any mistake, please contact me.

Revised article please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article now is better, but still can be improved. Even after adding a small comment about using software, their applications are unclear.  Also, the applications of the finite element method that the authors added are general, it would be better to describe the application directly for the task presented in the article. Maybe the block scheme of the method will be useful. 

Figure 4 still needs a bigger scale on axis  Y.  I recommend principally improving Chapter 3 "Model building" focused on solving algorithms, not on the software.

Author Response

For research article

 

 

Response to Reviewer Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I have modified the article according to your suggestions and marked the modified parts in red
2. Questions for General Evaluation	Reviewer’s Evaluation	Response and Revisions
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	Yes	I agree with reviewer’s suggestion
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	Yes
Is the research design appropriate?	Can be improved
Are the methods adequately described?	Can be improved
Are the results clearly presented?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	Yes
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Figure 4 still needs a bigger scale on axis Y.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have increased the Y axis in line 266.
Comments 2: I recommend principally improving Chapter 3 "Model building" focused on solving algorithms, not on the software.
Response 2: Agree. I have written the algorithms. You can see line 198.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1:
Response 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
5. Additional clarifications
Not any more