Energy Measurement in Standard Penetration Tests
, Minjie Li 3, Yueyi Wang 1, Tianlun Shen 1 and Alfrendo Satyanaga 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The following comments need to be addressed for further refinement of manuscript:1. A research significance statement at the end of abstract need to be included in research article
2. Relevant and latest literature in the introduction section needs to be included
3. Author are advised to mention the novelty in the introduction section
4. Give a solid reason in the introduction section that why authors have selected this method during penetration test
5. A separate discussion section need to be included in the revised manuscript to highlights the main findings
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the whole manuscript, it is interesting but before acceptance some minor revision is needed.
1. Please improves the language of the manuscript.
2. Please improve the figure quality and also added the sources of the figure.
3. In the Table please added the errors present percentages.
4. In the conclusion section please added the main objective of the research work.
5. Please cited some more papers regarding the energy measurement in standard penetration test.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
May be considered after minor revision. comments are present in the annotated file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The author performed an in-situ test at a project in China and obtained the corresponding time history curves, data of strain, acceleration, force, velocity, energy and penetration degree through the stress wave test. The research content and results of this article are basically correct, but lack of innovation, or the author haven’t emphasized the novelty and originality of this article. It is recommended that the author review the present research results of the article and give a more detailed introduction to the innovative content and research significance of the article. Some suggestions:
Abstract
- The abstract should emphasize the novelty and originality of this article
Section 1 (Introduction)
- Introduction part can be improved. It should contain a critical review of literature, a presentation of the research gap, emphasis on the article's novelty and originality. Hence, the authors are recommended to improve this part. The current version only cited 12 articles, and some of them are decades ago.
Section 2 (Materials and Methods)
- It seems the equations in section 2.1 are all cited from references [3] and [13]. Some of the variables are not clearly explained, for example, Ei in equation 6, a(t) in equation 9, v(t) in equations 5 and 9.
Section 3 (Results and Discussions)
- Figure 4 to figure 8 can be improved. The quality of the current version seems to low.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
In this paper,the energy transfer efficiency of SPT system was measured and the propagation law of stress wave and energy in drill pipe was analyzed. The stress wave test indicated that most of the measured hammer energy efficiency is between 74.5% and 84.5%, the measured average value of energy is 0.3723 kJ, the average value of energy efficiency is 78.7%, the standard deviation (SD) of energy efficiency is 3.82, and the coefficient of variation (CV) of energy transfer efficiency is 4.9%. Based on the study in this paper, the average energy efficiency of 78.7% is recommended to be used as the energy efficiency of SPT system.
Main comments:
1. There are two obvious data calculation errors in the article, the second natural paragraph ‘ In Figure 6, the rod length is 7.55 m, the time interval 2L'/c is 3.04 s’ on page 9, where the value of ‘2L'/c’ is too large, should it be 3.04ms?The first natural paragraph ‘the standard deviation of energy transfer efficiency SD is 3.82, ’ on page 12, where the value of ‘SD’ is too large, should it be 3.82%?
2. In the introduction part, some research results of energy efficiency ratio ER are described, but not including China's. This paper mainly studies the energy efficiency ratio ER of the standard penetration test in China,has there been any previous research on this aspect? If ever, it can be added in the introduction section, and the existing research can be compared with the results calculated in this paper after the energy efficiency ratio ER is calculated in this paper. If there is a large difference between the previous research results and the research results of this paper, the reasons can be analyzed.
3. Page 5 introduces the process of standard penetration test in detail, but there is only one diagram. For the convenience of readers, it is suggested to add some diagrams. Such as the schematic diagram of standard penetration test instrument, including the composition of the instrument, and the corresponding dimensions .Such as photos of field instrument layout of strain sensor and acceleration sensor
4. Paragraph 1 on page 8 mentions that uses the signal comparison of acceleration sensors on both sides as the basis for judging the eccentric effect, as the basis for judging the eccentric effect, and 44 sets of valid data are also screened based on this. Whether there is corresponding numerical calculation to judge whether the signals are the same on both sides or are they only obtained by observations.
5. Only 44 sets of valid data were finally collected through a large number of tests in the paper. Whether the existence of a large number of invalid data means that due to eccentric effect and other reasons, there are a large number of results in the actual standard penetration test that are inconsistent with the ideal results applied in this calculation. Will this make this study not of universal significance?
6. It is well known that the accuracy of standard penetration test is greatly affected by human factors. The test results are affected by the drilling method, installation of test equipment, loss of penetrator, penetration speed and other factors. Whether these factors should be limited to discussion in this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have addressed comments successfully, therefore I am in the position to accept this research paper for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has been sufficiently revised.
Reviewer 5 Report
All my comments have been well addressed and thus I recommend acceptance of this paper for publication.
