Reviewer 17985 Comments to Author:

The paper deals with a topic that may be of interest for one
location, but not for general application. The
finding is based on two data points at one job site and
therefore they cannot be generalized. I would suggest that it
presented as a poster, but only after the paper has been edited
to improve the English.

Also, please clarify why Figure 9 and Table 4 are both included
as they seemingly present the same information. and when you
preset an equation, please indicate what all the variable stand
for.

Incorporated.
Reviewer 18002 Comments to Author:
In this paper, the authors focus on the prediction of modulus
of elasticity from empirical equations. Unfortunately, there
are several shortcomings of the paper which should be
addressed.

The authors state that "the aim of this study is to find a

realistic ‘E’ value from available empirical correlations".
However, the predictions from the empirical equations have
only been compared with the experimental results. The authors
need to state the assumptions made in selecting those
equations. Were the soil properties in field test and the soil
properties applicable for empirical equations closely related?
On a separate note, the authors should explain why only few
empirical equations performed well in prediction of modulus of
elasticity.

Nearly 20 empirical equations considered.

Figure 8: The mesh size adopted for the Plaxis 3D. Did the
author conducted the mesh convergence study. Also, the figure
only tells the maximum displacement at a particular node which
is not represented in the figure. It is advised to represent
the point of maximum displacement in the figure.

Shall add figure.

The authors compared the settlement obtained from experiments

with numerical results from settle-3D and Plaxis. The
numerical results obtained from Plaxis shows significant
deviation from the experimental results. In current draft, the
comparison doesn't seem acceptable without proper reason for
such deviation. The authors should explain the key assumptions
which caused the deviations.

Explained.

Figures 10 and 11: The settlement calculated using Plaxis 3D

shows a significant deviation from the experiment. However,
the reported percentage of deviations do not match with the
reported results. For the calculation, the experiment results
should be considered as the benchmark results rather than the
simulation results. The deviations seem to be more than 100%,
approximately, as compared to the reported value of 60%. It is
advised to revise the calculations.

Revised