-->PONE-D-26-16041-->-->A Dual-Interface Load Transfer Model for Precast Concrete-Cored Cemented Soil Piles Considering Progressive Damage-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Yating Zhu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by  May 28 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dajiang Geng

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52168045) and the Key Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province (Grant No. 20252BCF320006).”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52168045) and the Key Research and Development Program of Jiangxi Province (Grant No. 20252BCF320006).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In the online submission form, you indicated that The minimal dataset supporting the findings of this study is included within the manuscript. Full raw data will be made available upon reasonable request during peer review, and will be deposited in a public repository upon acceptance for publication.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

7. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted image. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an “Other” file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Reviewer Comments

The paper entitled A Dual-Interface Load Transfer Model for Precast Concrete-Cored Cemented Soil Piles Considering Progressive Damage presents a dual-interface load-transfer model that accounts for progressive damage at the precast concrete (PC) core–cemented soil interface. Combined with laboratory test calibrations and field engineering validation, the research topic is highly relevant to studies on the load-transfer mechanism of composite pile foundations in geotechnical engineering, and offers potential value for the engineering design and bearing capacity evaluation of precast concrete-cored cemented soil (PCCS) piles. Nevertheless, several points in the manuscript require further clarification and improvement, as detailed below:

The introduction lacks sufficient clarity in identifying the specific research gaps. The manuscript should clearly state the key differences between the proposed “coupled exponential damage model and elastoplastic model” and existing PCCS load-transfer models in the literature, and discuss relevant pioneering work accordingly. It should also explicitly point out the limitations of previous models in characterizing interface damage and dual-interface coupling mechanisms, as well as the specific approaches adopted in this study to overcome these limitations.

The current reference list is dominated by citations from Chinese scholars. A more diverse range of international references, including those from international academic conferences, should be incorporated to reflect the latest global progress in PCCS, composite piles, and interface damage modeling, thereby enhancing the international perspective and academic relevance of the study.

The decomposition expression for pile-head settlement in Equation (1) (“S” (“z” )“ =” 〖〖“ s” 〗_“pc” “ + s” 〗_“cs” “ + ” “S” _“s” ) has been adopted in several previous studies. It is suggested that a proper citation be added to clarify the origin of this expression and strengthen the rigor of the theoretical derivation.

The manuscript employs a variety of symbols that are critical to the model description. A comprehensive table of symbols and parameters is recommended, listing the name, physical meaning, and unit of each symbol and parameter to improve readability.

The specimen details in the interface shear tests are relatively brief. Additional experimental information, such as the curing conditions of specimens, may be supplemented.

The mechanism analysis of axial force along the pile shaft and shaft friction lacks sufficient depth. The manuscript only reports the observed “C-shaped distribution” of axial force along depth but does not explain the underlying causes, such as the stiffness difference between the PC core and cemented soil, the non-uniform mobilization of shear stress at the two interfaces, and the variation in the proportion of pile-tip resistance. A brief mechanistic explanation is suggested.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript proposes a dual-interface load-transfer framework that considers progressive damage at the inner interface, and the engineering motivation is clear. The manuscript can be considered for publication after minor revision, provided that the authors address the following points to improve clarity and consistency of interpretation.

1. Lines 69-70: Some claims are too strong. It states that the iterative algorithm has “guaranteed convergence.” The “guaranteed convergence” should be revised unless a formal proof or additional convergence study is provided.

2. The assumptions, considering the pile, cemented soil and surrounding soil as homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic materials, are acceptable for a simplified analytical model. However, the authors should briefly discuss the limitation of this assumption and clarify the scope of applicability more explicitly.

3. Line 249 and Line 271: The determination of the critical relative displacements s_u1and s_u2could be clarified further. Since the interface test curves may vary slightly under different test conditions, the authors are encouraged to explain how these representative values were determined. Please clarify whether they correspond to peak-displacement values, fitted transition points, or averaged values from multiple tests.

4. The Introduction could be improved by discussing some closely related studies. I suggest the authors cite and discuss the following relevant paper:

Li, L., Lai, N., Zhao, X., Zhu, T., & Su, Z. (2023). A generalized elastoplastic load-transfer model for axially loaded piles in clay: Incorporation of modulus degradation and skin friction softening. Computers and Geotechnics, 161, 105594.

Ni, P., Song, L., Mei, G., & Zhao, Y. (2017). Generalized nonlinear softening load-transfer model for axially loaded piles. International Journal of Geomechanics, 17(8), 04017019.

5.Line 92: For clarity, please add explicit definitions of all symbols in Eq. (1), including S(z), s_pc, s_cs, and S_s.

6. Lines 152-153: The node numbering scheme is somewhat unconventional, since Node 1 is defined at the pile toe and Node m+1 at the pile head. Please add a brief explanatory note in the text or figure so that readers can follow the recursion procedure more easily

7. Lines 265–266: There is an obvious editing error: “Error! Reference source not found.” This should be corrected.

Reviewer #3: This paper presents a coupled model for the dual-interface load transfer of Precast Concrete-Cored Cemented Soil Piles (PCCS), which considers progressive damage at the inner interface and elastoplastic behavior at the outer interface. The model parameters are calibrated via direct shear tests and validated using field pile data, with a coefficient of determination R2=0.9746. The overall work is solid and practically valuable for engineering applications. However, several issues require clarification and revision by the authors:

1. The PC pile, cemented soil, and surrounding soil are assumed to be linearly elastic. In reality, plastic deformation and damage occur in cemented soil and surrounding soil under loading. The authors are suggested to explain the rationale for this modeling assumption and indicate whether relevant analyses have been conducted.

2. The specific value of the convergence criterion used in the iterative algorithm is not provided. Additionally, the authors should explain whether the algorithm remains convergent for layered soil conditions.

3. Only the final values of the exponential damage model parameters for the inner interface ( ) are reported. The fitting curves and residuals are not presented, making it impossible to assess the reliability of the calibration.

4. The laboratory direct shear tests were performed on scaled models, which introduce scale effects on material strength and interface properties. The authors should clarify how the scaled parameters can be directly applied to the 14 m full-scale pile.

5. The elastoplastic parameters for the outer interface ( ) are derived solely from sand. The authors should address whether these parameters are applicable to clay or silty clay.

6. The origin of the cemented soil elastic modulus is unclear. The authors must specify whether it was obtained from laboratory tests, empirical values, or literature references.

7. Only one field test pile was used in this study. The small sample size prevents validation of the model’s generalizability to different pile lengths, pile diameters, and soil conditions, and cannot eliminate random errors.

8. The authors are requested to carefully proofread the paper for linguistic polishing and correct all formatting errors, including incorrect citations (e.g., “Error! Reference source not found”).

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link “View Attachments”. If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

A Dual-Interface Load Transfer Model for Precast Concrete-Cored Cemented Soil Piles Considering Progressive Damage

PONE-D-26-16041R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information’ link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dajiang Geng

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your “Accept” recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The authors have revised their manuscript as requested, and it has significantly improved compared to the original version. Therefore, I recommend accepting and publishing it.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my previous comments. The revised manuscript is now acceptable for publication. I have no further concerns and recommend acceptance.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********