Parametric Study of Lateral Loaded Blade Pile in Clay
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW
on article
Parametric Study of Lateral Loaded Blade Pile in Clay
Lin Li, Guowei Sui, Jialin Zhou and Erwin Oh
SUMMARY
The article submitted for review is devoted to a topical issue. It considers a parametric study of a bladed pile with a side load in clay. The study is devoted to the important problem of pile-type foundations, which are subjected to lateral wind loads. The parametric study of the authors was carried out using modern methods, numerical modeling of a paddle pile buried in clay soil was carried out. The authors conducted a extended study, took into account the modulus of soil deformation, strength parameters of adhesion, and made several important conclusions. The analytical component of the article is very strong; the authors obtained several important engineering results that can be applied in practice. In particular, the article has a high level of practical significance. The article also has a certain novelty. With all the advantages of the article, it also has disadvantages. They should be corrected, and the article should be sent for re-reviewing.
COMMENTS
1. The authors did not formulate the research problem in the abstract. It is not clear why the study was conducted, what important problem was being solved. The authors only report that pile-type foundations are exposed to lateral wind loads. This is not enough to talk about a serious solved scientific problem. It should be defined more clearly.
2. Further, it is not clear from the abstract what the scientific novelty is, namely: what new scientific achievements were made by the authors, what is new and what is the scientific significance of the article. The authors focused too much on engineering, practical significance, but did not reflect the scientific novelty. The authors listed the quantitative characteristics of the obtained results in too much detail. They provided data for a standard 1.5-meter pile and with a specific diameter of 76.1. This begs the question: is the study so narrow, that is, it is intended only for a specific product of a particular pile, or can it be relayed to other products of a similar type of operation? It is important that the authors reflect this.
3. Further, the authors conducted an insufficiently extended literature review. They reviewed a total of 19 sources in the Introduction section. This is extremely small, since pile foundations are a very common building solution, and a lot of research has been done in the literature in the last 5 years. It is necessary to expand the literature review to 30-40 sources at least.
4. The authors did not pay attention to the formulation of the problem. Is the problem solved statically or dynamically? What is the position of the pile in space and how are the coordinate axes directed?
5. Please, give a calculation scheme with boundary conditions, applied forces and base reactions.
6. The considered soils have the features of changing their characteristics from moisture or from time to time. How was it considered?
7. How was the model verified?
8. Is there a comparison with experimental data?
9. Lines 71-79 need more preamble.
10. Figure 1 looks uninformative. Authors should consider changing and improving it.
11. At the same time, figure 2 looks too heavy and is perceived very hard.
12. In section 3, the authors present an overly protocol-based view of their study. It is necessary to bring more descriptive, analytical component. The section is currently overloaded with tables and graphs. At the same time, it ends with figure 9, which is not disclosed. A clear interpretation and transition between sections 3 and 4 should be given. Approximately the same remark applies to section 4. Sections 3 and 4 should be revised.
13. There is no discussion per se in the article. It is necessary to give a detailed comparison in terms of analytics of the obtained results with the results of other authors, for example, to analyze the comparison of the studied types of piles with other types of piles, and also, perhaps, to explain how such piles work for other types of loads. Otherwise, the article does not have sufficient scientific analytics, which is unacceptable.
14. The conclusions need to be supplemented, to expand the field of research, to determine the prospects for applying the results obtained. At the same time, as already mentioned, it is necessary to reflect not only the practical engineering component, but also the scientific novelty.
15. The list of references is very small. At the same time, it is striking that the introduction contains source 19, but it is not in the list of references. Apparently, there is a technical error. In addition, the amount of literature should be increased to at least 30 sources, otherwise the study will be incomplete.
16. The general conclusion is that the article is of some interest but needs serious revision. After completion and correction of comments, the article must be sent for re-reviewing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments:
The paper "Research on Parameters of Lateral Load blade Pile in clay" studied the blade pile foundation of a solar panel project, which was subjected to transverse wind load. Through numerical simulation of blade pile embedded in clay, parametric research was carried out. The results show that the bearing capacity of blade pile foundation is positively correlated with soil modulus and cohesion strength parameters. In addition, the bearing capacity of ordinary pile and blade pile are compared. The relationship between simulated load and soil displacement is analyzed by considering soil state of clay with different degree of hardness and softness. It is found that the application of blades increases the horizontal bearing capacity of pile foundation and has certain engineering application value. The following are the problems in the manuscript of this pape :
(1) the introduction in section I suggests simplification; some concepts are too cumbersome to explain.
(2) In Figure 1, the thickness of CHSB0P pile and CHSB1P pile are not consistent, while the outer diameters of the two types of piles given in Table 1 are the same. The principle of single variable should be maintained, otherwise, the research results will not be convincing, so it is suggested to be modified.
(3) Section 2.1 of the paper clearly explains the area, length and thickness of the paddle blade, but in Table 1, only the area of the paddle blade is reflected, and the length and thickness are not reflected, which is not rigorous enough. It is suggested to add them.
(4) In the second section, title 2.1 appears twice, once as pile geometry and material parameters, and once as soil material parameters and model geometry. Obviously, the format is wrong, so it is suggested to be modified.
(5) in the second section of the soil pile foundation finite element simulation in the second quarter at the end of the material parameters and model a few wen, the author initially said when soil size is too big or too hours respectively, the model will spend more time or provide inaccurate results, this paper expounds the influences of the size of soil, given the soil directly behind the model size, didn't explain why choose this size, not serious,It is suggested to explain why the model of this size is chosen and what the advantages are. This point is not based on the text and is not rigorous. It is suggested to be modified.
(6)The limit displacements of (a), (b), (c) and (d) can not be seen intuitively in FIG. 2, and when the load is very small, the relevant changes of each curve under different elastic moduli can hardly be seen. It is suggested that the accuracy of the chart can be improved, so that readers can see it more intuitively and accurately.
(7)3.1.2 is the study of the influence of elastic modulus, which is not only repeated with the title of 3.1.1, but also inconsistent with the content stated below, so it is suggested to be modified.
(8)The formula in Section 3.1.2 lacks references.
(9)In Section 3.1.2, it is stated in Table 7 that there is a positive correlation between ultimate bearing capacity and cohesion. However, in Table 7, when the elastic modulus is 50MPa, with the increase of cohesion, there is no positive correlation between ultimate bearing capacity and cohesion. The statement in this paper is not rigorous enough, and it is suggested to be modified.
(10)in section 4.1, the article said that after the soil conditions were determined, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile foundation of the blade is greater than the ordinary pile foundation bearing capacity, but we found by comparing table 7 and 9 or, in the elastic modulus of 50 mpa, cohesion of 10 kpa, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile foundation of the blade is smaller than normal, the bearing capacity of pile foundation,The statement in the article is too certain and not rigorous enough. It is suggested to be revised.
(11)In the conclusion of Section V, it is not that the greater the cohesion is, the greater the capacity will be. In Table 10, when the soil quality changes from very hard clay to hard clay, the cohesion will increase, but the capacity will decrease. The argument in this paper is not rigorous, so it is suggested to be modified.
(12)In the conclusion of Section V, it is not that the ultimate bearing capacity of CHSB0P pile foundation and CHSB1P pile foundation increases with the increase of soil cohesion. In Table 7, when the elastic modulus is 50MPa, there is no positive correlation between the ultimate bearing capacity and cohesion with the increase of cohesion. The statement in this paper is not precise enough, so it is suggested to be modified.
(13)in conclusion, in section 4.1, the paper said that after the soil conditions were determined, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile foundation of the blade is greater than the ordinary pile foundation bearing capacity, but we found by comparing table 7 and 9 or, in the elastic modulus of 50 mpa, cohesion of 10 kpa, the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile foundation of the blade is smaller than normal, the bearing capacity of pile foundation,The statement in the article is too certain and not rigorous enough.
It is suggested to be revised. To sum up, I suggest that this article needs some revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments were taken into account and necessary corrections were done in the article's text. I recommend the article for publishing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper "Research on Parameters of Lateral Load blade Pile in clay" studied the blade pile foundation of a solar panel project, which was subjected to transverse wind load. Through numerical simulation of blade pile embedded in clay, parametric research was carried out.The results show that the bearing capacity of blade pile foundation is positively correlated with soil modulus and cohesion strength parameters. In addition, the bearing capacity of ordinary pile and blade pile are compared.The relationship between simulated load and soil displacement is analyzed by considering soil state of clay with different degree of hardness and softness.It is found that the application of blades increases the horizontal bearing capacity of pile foundation and has certain engineering application value.The following are the problems in the manuscript of this paper :
(1) In FIG. 3 of 3.1.1, the increase rate of bearing capacity of the hard soil with cohesion of 100kpa is 0.038, accurate to the thousandth place, while the minimum increase rate of bearing capacity of the hard soil with cohesion of 10kPa is 0.0065, without any accuracy and inconsistent, so it is recommended to unify the accuracy.
(2) In the quoted formula 3.1.2, when the incremental gradient takes different values, the value interval of cohesion is repeated, so it is recommended to modify it.
(3) In Table 9 of 3.2.1, it is stated that when the cohesive force is 10kPa and the elastic modulus is 100MPa, the slope of CHSB1P and CHSB0P is relatively large, which is not consistent with FIG. 7. The cohesive force should be 100kPa, and it is suggested to be modified.
(4) In Table 9 of 3.2.1, it is stated that when the cohesion is 10kPa and the elastic modulus is 100MPa, the slope of CHSB1P and CHSB0P is relatively large, which can only indicate that the ultimate bearing capacity increases with the increase of elastic modulus and cohesion, but does not mean that the ultimate bearing capacity is higher after adding blades to the pile foundation.Because it needs to be concluded by comparing Figure 3 and Figure 7, it cannot be concluded directly and is not rigorous enough, so it is suggested to be modified.
(5) In the second paragraph of Section 4.2, the original text says that the minimum bearing capacity of CHSB0 when the soil is hard is 2.7kN, and the maximum bearing capacity of CHSB0 is 19.6kN, which is wrong. The minimum bearing capacity of CHSB0 when the soil is soft is 2.7kN, and the maximum bearing capacity of CHSB0 when the soil is hard is 19.6kN, which is suggested to be modified.
(6) In the conclusion of Section V, it is not that the greater the cohesion is, the greater the capacity improvement is. In Table 10, when the soil quality changes from very hard clay to hard clay, the cohesion is increasing, but the capacity improvement is decreasing. The argument in the paper is not rigorous, so it is suggested to be modified.
To sum up, I suggest that this manuscript need minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
