Potential of Computer-Aided Engineering in the Design of Ground-Improvement Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 1.     The abstract section was recommended to add quantitative experiment results for the purpose of better readability.  

2.     Each symbol in the manuscript was supposed be clearly explained, such as Dp, Dt in Eq. (1).

3.     Please provide more evidence for the statement “This method is an innovative technology that uses jets of pressure value less than 20… ”

4.     Please carefully proofread the manuscript to correct typo and grammar mistakes in the manuscript, such as the first sentence in the section 5.1 validation of analytical ground model “igure 6 shows the results of the stress…”

5.     More explanations for table 3 were in need.

6.     The following studies were recommended to be properly cited: [1] Impacts of Free-floating Bikesharing System on Public Transit Ridership. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 76:100-110. [2] Sensing Data Supported Traffic Flow Prediction via Denoising Schemes and ANN: A Comparison," IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, pp. 14317-14328, 2020.

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

POTENTIAL OF COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING IN DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECH-NOLOGIES

applsci-1909399

Sudip Shakya and Shinya Inazumi

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

Reviewer #1:

• The abstract section was recommended to add quantitative experiment results for the purpose of better readability.

Authors response: …Done

• Each symbol in the manuscript was supposed be clearly explained, such as Dp, Dt in Eq. (1).

Authors response: …It has been explained.

• Please provide more evidence for the statement “This method is an innovative technology that uses jets of pressure value less than 20… ”

Authors response: …Done.

• Please carefully proofread the manuscript to correct typo and grammar mistakes in the manuscript, such as the first sentence in the section 5.1 validation of analytical ground model “igure 6 shows the results of the stress…”.

Authors response: … It has been corrected.

• More explanations for table 3 were in need.

Authors response: …Only a single sentence is added since the detailed discussion for the result was done by plotting a comparison graph in figure 9 and most of the explanation will be overlapped with the text following it.

• The following studies were recommended to be properly cited: [1] Impacts of Free-floating Bikesharing System on Public Transit Ridership. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 76:100-110. [2] Sensing Data Supported Traffic Flow Prediction via Denoising Schemes and ANN: A Comparison," IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, pp. 14317-14328, 2020.

Authors response: …Thank you for the recommendation. It has been cited properly.

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the Reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper the authors present the results of realistic simulation of the middle-pressure jet grouting method by establishing a computer-aided engineering (CAE) system from the design stage of the ground model and verifying the validity of the construction process after the model has been analyzed by the moving particle semi-implicit (MPS) method. An interesting engineering problem was discussed, nonetheless there are some remarks:

1. In the title there is TECH-NOLOGIES, it needs to be corrected.

2. The literature review is cursory, please extend it with the worldwide papers.

3. No citations from references 22, 23, 24 and 25 were found in the text.

4. The descriptions in Figure 1 are illegible.

5. The literature as well as the references to drawings and equations are not according to the journal's template.

6. Grammar mistakes, punctuation, misspellings need to be corrected (e.g. 5.1. 'igure 6'). A thourough proofreading in necessary.

7. The results presented in Figure 6 are discussed only in a qualitative  way. A quantative conclusions should be drawn. Why does the strain in case of simulated data is much higher  than in experimental data?

Author Response

Response by Authors to Reviewer’s Remarks/Comments

POTENTIAL OF COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING IN DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECH-NOLOGIES

applsci-1909399

Sudip Shakya and Shinya Inazumi

The authors have summarized their replies to the Reviewers’ comments in this response letter.

A revised manuscript is submitted addressing all the comments to the for possible publication.

Reviewer #2:

In the paper the authors present the results of realistic simulation of the middle-pressure jet grouting method by establishing a computer-aided engineering (CAE) system from the design stage of the ground model and verifying the validity of the construction process after the model has been analyzed by the moving particle semi-implicit (MPS) method. An interesting engineering problem was discussed, nonetheless there are some remarks:

• In the title there is TECH-NOLOGIES, it needs to be corrected.

Authors response: …It has been corrected. The corrected title is “POTENTIAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED ENGINEERING IN THE DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNOLOGIES”

• The literature review is cursory, please extend it with the worldwide papers.

Authors response: …An attempt has been made.

• No citations from references 22, 23, 24 and 25 were found in the text.

Authors response: …It has been cited properly.

• The descriptions in Figure 1 are illegible.

Authors response: …It has been replaced with better quality.

• The literature as well as the references to drawings and equations are not according to the journal's template.

Authors response: …Thank you for the comment.

• Grammar mistakes, punctuation, misspellings need to be corrected (e.g. 5.1. 'igure 6'). A thourough proofreading in necessary.

Authors response: … It has been corrected.

• The results presented in Figure 6 are discussed only in a qualitative A quantative conclusions should be drawn. Why does the strain in case of simulated data is much higher  than in experimental data?

Authors response: …It has been added.

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from the Reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

no further comments