An Analytical Solution for the Deformation of Soft Ground Reinforced by Columnar Inclusions under Equal Stress Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editors and Authors,
Decision: The article is an interesting analytical, numerical and laboratory study on deformations of soft ground reinforced by columnar inclusions under equal stress conditions.
It may be published in the journal Applied Sciences, and it is recommended that the authors consider the comments at *.pdf.
With regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. It seems that the introduction and conclusion need to be supplemented to emphasize the originality of this paper.
2. There is a concern about self-citation, and it is necessary to clearly state self-citation for formulas and figures.
3. It seems necessary to specify the validity of the application of the Alamgir's equation used for comparison and the reliability of the PLAXIS program.
4. The information on mechanical properties used for theory verification and analysis verification is mixed, so unification is necessary, and it seems necessary to specify the unit at the level of significant figures.
5. If the FEM comparison results are added to Figure 9, it is likely to provide readers with more reliable information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The comments of the reviewer on applsci-1959701-peer-review-v1:
This paper deals with the development of a new analytical model for capturing the elastic field of soft ground reinforced by columnar inclusions subjected to equal stress. Both radial and vertical displacements are taken into account. Through solving the governing equations, both force equilibrium equations and compatibility relations are satisfied. The predicted settlement-load intensity curves by the proposed analytical model are compared with those obtained by the finite-element method (FEM) for various L/D ratios, and for low levels of load intensity, fairly good agreement is reported. Then, the roles of area ratio, the diameter of inclusions, inter-inclusion distance, and Poisson’s ratios of both matrix and inclusion on the settlement are explained graphically.
The major concerns of the reviewer on this work are as follows:
1. All given factors and parameters within the paper’s manuscript, in Tables, figures’ labels and legends, and the main body of the manuscript, should be given in italic font NOT bold or normal font manner. Please check the whole manuscript against this deficiency.
2. According to the plotted results in Fig. 9, it is seen that the discrepancies between the predicted settlement-load intensity curves and those obtained based on the performed experiments increase with the lessening of the slenderness ratio. Further, the caused discrepancies are more obvious for higher values of the load intensity. How such a fact can be explained? Please clarify this issue in your paper’s manuscript.
3. The obtained results reveal that for a given length of columnar inclusions, the relative differences between the predicted results by the proposed model and those of the experiment generally reduce with the growth of the inclusion’s diameter. Is that true? How this crucial trend can be interpreted in the context of elastic solids? Please clarify through scientific explanations and discussion.
4. Is it not clearly visible that the authors are considering which boundary conditions at the contact area of the inclusion with the surrounding matrix? Please clarify in your manuscript as well.
5. How the demonstrated trends of the plots of settlement-radial distance for various values of elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio can be interpreted? Based on Figs. 12, 14, and 15, please explain your reasons and discussion on this matter.
6. How the role of the inter-inclusion distance on the resulting settlement-radial distance is explained? Using the plotted graphs in Fig. 13, the authors are encouraged to provide their reasons.
7. How the distance “d_e” is determined? Since this is of the main factors of the proposed model that at such a distance the slope of the settlement field should vanish, therefore, its value could directly influence the obtained results. Additionally, the authors are encouraged to provide a sensitivity analysis of the model to this factor (i.e., how this factor can influence on the variations of settlement curves and their corresponding trends?
8. The given formulations show that the elastic interactions between two adjacent columnar inclusions have NOT been considered in the modeling of the problem. Why? As we know, when the inter-inclusion distance is lower than a specific level, their interactions should be appropriately considered in the modeling of the problem. Please clarify and express your technical points of view.
9. The English of the paper should be appropriately improved. The authors are encouraged to consult a native editor or reliable language editing company (for example, EditSprings company: www.editsprings.com/) for improving the English of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, thank you for your efforts to revise the paper. It seems that some supplementation for Abstract and Conclusion is needed. It is necessary to carefully check the abstract guidelines required by the MDPI journal, and to suggest future directions in the case of conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Regarding the issues pointed out by you, we have made revisions. we are very grateful to you for your kind suggestions, which have greatly helped the improvement of the article, thank you again.
With regards
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be now accepted.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
we are very grateful to you for your kind suggestions, which have greatly helped the improvement of the article, thank you again.
With regards
