Ballasted Track Status Evaluation Based on Apparent Track Stiffness Index

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I find your paper very interesting to use stiffness index for track emulation. I will like to propose following improvement of your paper:

1. Always first write full name and then abbreviation, for example line 15
2. Technical remark, add one space between word and bracket, for example: line 11
3. Line 51 – its not a good approach to make chain citation. It will be better to have at least one /two sentence about each reference.
4. Line 117 – 120 – on Fig 2 you have R². Comment the results.
5. In all table please align numbers to right. In this way you can compare the numbers
6. Table 4 – Ratio – Supporting sleeper = 1 maybe is surplus
7. Line 227 – 234 please comment carefully results of R². For reader its better to explain R.
8. English language: little correlation = low correlation
9. Regarding the figuers5 and 6. Its obviously that is nonlinear and low correlation. On this place it will be good to make a deeper statistical conclusion what is happening.
10. Its not clear your expression: “average is significant” or “standard deviation is significant”. How you calculate level of significant?
11. Line 303 – 307 – see comment 7.
12. Adjust conclusion keeping in mind previous comments.

Regards,

Author Response

1.     Always first write full name and then abbreviation, for example line 15

Corrected.

 

2.     Technical remark, add one space between word and bracket, for example: line 11

Corrected.

 

3.     Line 51 – it’s not a good approach to make chain citation. It will be better to have at least one /two sentence about each reference.

The group of citation was separated by each sentence that explains the reference.

 

4.     Line 117 – 120 – on Fig 2 you have R2. Comment the results.

The definition of R2 was added and some comments on the results have also been added.

 

5.     In all table please align numbers to right. In this way you can compare the numbers

Numbers in the tables are realigned by centered-alignment.

 

6.     Table 4 – Ratio – Supporting sleeper = 1 maybe is surplus

The number 1’s were all removed.

 

7.     Line 227 – 234 please comment carefully results of R2. For reader its better to explain R.

Meaning of R2 was added.

 

8.     English language: little correlation = low correlation

Corrected.

 

9.     Regarding the figures 5 and 6. It’s obviously that is nonlinear and low correlation. On this place it will be good to make a deeper statistical conclusion what is happening.

Some more explanation was added near Fig 6.

 

10.  It’s not clear your expression: “average is significant” or “standard deviation is significant”. How you calculate level of significant?

‘Average is significant’ changed to ‘average is relatively large’.

“e.g., 100 kN/mm or greater” is added at ‘significant’ in line 288.

Based on the field test experiences, average seems to be significant if it is above 100 kN/mm and standard deviation seems to be significant if it is above 40 kN/mm. However, these values are not yet finalized. Further research is needed in near future in order to verify and set the criteria. In this regard, those values are not included in this paper.

 

11.  Line 303 – 307 – see comment 7.

Corrected and some explanation was added.

 

12.  Adjust conclusion keeping in mind previous comments.

Conclusion was modified based on the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The second and third pictures are different, so text should be inserted between them.

The correct title of the second picture should be created.

Examples of physical quantities are needed in the findings.

Author Response

1. The second and third pictures are different, so text should be inserted between them.

Figure 3 is required to explain the features of hanging sleepers and supporting sleepers. The text of line 109 to 130 are closed linked each other; therefore, it would be worse if a certain portion of the text between line 109 and 130 is inserted between figure 2 and figure 3.

 

2. The correct title of the second picture should be created.

Corrected.

 

3. Examples of physical quantities are needed in the findings.

Physical quantities for each substructure were added.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx