Improved Computer Vision Framework for Mesoscale Simulation of Xiyu Conglomerate Using the Discrete Element Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the authors
1) The manuscript deals with an improved SegFormer framework developed for detection of mesoscale geomaterial structures. A high-precision numerical model is established based on CT scan images of Xiyu Conglomerate (Cenozoic strata in the western part of China). The work is comprehensive and, with its topic and content, the proposed manuscript is suitable for the journal to which it is submitted.
2) The title of the manuscript corresponds to the substance of the paper.
3) The abstract reflects the content of the paper realistically and is properly organised.
4) The keywords have been correctly selected.
5) The general structure of the manuscript corresponds to the usual format of a scientific article: Introduction, Methodology (Presentation of the research method), Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
6) The introductory section starts with a brief elaboration of the background, motivation and objectives of the work, followed by literature review of the relevant research in the field, which could be more comprehensive, emphasising the state-of-the-art in the research area.
7) In the last paragraphs of the introductory section, the authors should briefly present the hypothesis and the methodology approach. They should also state what they consider as their main scientific contribution that makes the research different enough in comparison to the other authors' works. Namely, the rationale for the extent of the novelty of the conducted research is not very convincing and should be further elaborated.
8) There are no critical doubtful, or controversial arguments in the manuscript. The methodology applied in the research is appropriate and scientifically relevant, although some parts could be presented in more detail.
9) The section devoted to the results and the discussion can be regarded as correctly prepared.
10) The claims in the section "Conclusions" are reasonable and supported by the presented results.
11) The linguistic preparation of the manuscript has been done relatively well. The quality of some figures should be improved.
Author Response
- The manuscript deals with an improved SegFormer framework developed for detection of mesoscale geomaterial structures. A high-precision numerical model is established based on CT scan images of Xiyu Conglomerate (Cenozoic strata in the western part of China). The work is comprehensive and, with its topic and content, the proposed manuscript is suitable for the journal to which it is submitted.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The title of the manuscript corresponds to the substance of the paper.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The abstract reflects the content of the paper realistically and is properly organised.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The keywords have been correctly selected.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The general structure of the manuscript corresponds to the usual format of a scientific article: Introduction, Methodology (Presentation of the research method), Results, Discussion, and Conclusions.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The introductory section starts with a brief elaboration of the background, motivation and objectives of the work, followed by literature review of the relevant research in the field, which could be more comprehensive, emphasising the state-of-the-art in the research area.
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable comments on writing. We have reworked the Introduction section to include more relevant and up-to-date reference （from line 62to 74）.
- In the last paragraphs of the introductory section, the authors should briefly present the hypothesis and the methodology approach. They should also state what they consider as their main scientific contribution that makes the research different enough in comparison to the other authors' works. Namely, the rationale for the extent of the novelty of the conducted research is not very convincing and should be further elaborated.
Reply: Thank you very much for the instructive suggestion. We have changed the last part of the introduction to include the contributions and innovations of our work.
- There are no critical doubtful, or controversial arguments in the manuscript. The methodology applied in the research is appropriate and scientifically relevant, although some parts could be presented in more detail.
Reply: Thanks very much for the kindly comments. We have made some modifications to the Method as well as the Results and Discussion to present our research in a clearer and more detailed way.
- The section devoted to the results and the discussion can be regarded as correctly prepared.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The claims in the section "Conclusions" are reasonable and supported by the presented results.
Reply: Thank you for your affirmation.
- The linguistic preparation of the manuscript has been done relatively well. The quality of some figures should be improved.
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable comments on writing. We have upgraded the quality of the images, selected higher quality versions of some images, and added graphical metric scales to give the reader a clearer understanding of the content of the image.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Please revise your text to accommodate these minor adjustments that you can find attached as comments in your text.
Best wishes.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Please add the corresponding size nominations next to the images that you are referring to. Is it in cm, pixels or inch...
Reply: Thanks for the kindly reminder of reviewer. We have added units for image size at line115-117.
- Please add the correct dimension or size guide on the image so it clarifies the size of the gravel or pores
Reply: Thanks very much for the kindly comments. We added the correct graphical scale to Figure 1,9 and 10.
- These abbreviations are occurring in the text in few occasions, please add full name as an introduction and letter on it is appropriate to use abbreviations. Please correct this for other similar cases.
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable comments on writing. We have explained these abbreviations in the text。
- Please explain to what part of the text are these numbers connected to and add it in the appropriate part of the text
Reply: This is a really helpful suggestion. We have made the use of these statements more clearly understood in lines 262-264.
- 0.001 in time? length? Please add the appropriate measurements to this and similar cases in the text.
Reply: Thanks for the valuable comments. We have revised the article according to your comments and explained the learning rate first, so that the choice of learning rate is not easily misunderstood. (And the "learning rate" is a unitless hyperparameter that controls the step size of model parameter updates.)
- Please add the units(in table 1)
Reply: Thanks very much for the kindly comments. We have added units to the 3 parameters in table1.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
this is a paper with many parts developed to follow and interpret a failure at compression for a final intepretation with Distinct Element Method.
The content has no particular fault, but presentation is somewhere not clear or complete. Please follow the presented suggestions to ameliorate this work.
Thanks and Regards
1) Better focus at line 67 the focus of the paper, and also in the abstract.
2) Insert in fig 1 a graphical metric scale. Are done these images by means on a camera mounted on a optical microscope for petrography?
3) Give explicit defonition of the acronims CT and ROI
4) What is LabelMe?
5) Caption of fig 2 is not sufficient, improve substantially.
6) CNN, ALL, MLP, FNN, GELU, UNet HRNet, SegNet, PSPNet, MRI, COCO ; GPU, GTX , NMR, MBR : a lot of acronims to remember continuosly; if possible do not use too much these short forms.
Define also clearly each of the mentioned short terms.
7) Lines from 141 to 143 are not clear, please rewrite.
8) Lines 226-227 are not clear, please rewrite
9) What are reprenting Numbers 1 and 2 and 3 in lines 230, 231 and 238
10) In caption of fig 6 explain what BET and CCL are.
11) Fig 9 insert a graphical scale
12) Ch.3.3, improve description of geomechanical testing. How are made the specimens?
13) Line 422: is PFC Particle Flow Code? If yes, provide general parameters of the model used. Also (shortly) distinguish geometrically particle model (PFC) from block model (UDEC), also valid to follow these events, in order to justify the first approach choice to modelling. This detail should alternatively be done in the Introduction, together with additional references.
14) Is there any high speed frame video done during loading of specimen ?
15) Set similar typing characters for References list
16) Complete the listed references with, for example, the following titles that cover some parts for the "Introduction" of the paper
(a) Advantages of using digital image correlation techniques in uniaxial compression tests, by Ali Abdulqader et al.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.10010
(b) Experimental and analytical interpretation of the behaviour of laboratory tests on composite specimens, by Del Greco O. et al., 1993, Int. J. of Rock Mechanics and Min. Sci., Volume 30, Issue 7, 1539 - 1543, DOI 10.1016/0148-9062(93)90153-5
(c) Laboratory Experiments and Grain Based Discrete Element Numerical Simulations Investigating the ThermoMechanical Behaviour of Sandstone
by James Woodman et al., Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:4795–4815 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01794-z
Author Response
- Better focus at line 67 the focus of the paper, and also in the abstract.
Reply: Thanks for the valuable comments on writing. We have modified the section you mentioned to make it better reflect the contribution of this paper.
- Insert in fig 1 a graphical metric scale. Are done these images by means on a camera mounted on a optical microscope for petrography?
Reply: Thank you for the correction. These images are done by means on a camera mounted on a optical microscope for petrography.
- Give explicit definition of the acronims CT and ROI
Reply: Thanks for the kindly comments. We explained the two terms in the line 16 and line 129 namely
- What is LabelMe?
Reply: Thanks for the kindly comments. We explained it briefly in line129.
- Caption of fig 2 is not sufficient, improve substantially.
Reply: Thank you very much for the instructive suggestion. We have substantially improved the caption of figure2 to make it more reasonable.
- CNN, ALL, MLP, FNN, GELU, UNet HRNet, SegNet, PSPNet, MRI, COCO ; GPU, GTX , NMR, MBR : a lot of acronims to remember continuosly; if possible do not use too much these short forms.
Reply: We would like to thank the valuable comments from the reviewer. We have cut down the use of these abbreviations in the text, and explanations are given for those abbreviations used.
- Define also clearly each of the mentioned short terms.
1) Lines from 141 to 143 are not clear, please rewrite.
2) Lines 226-227 are not clear, please rewrite
3) What are reprenting Numbers 1 and 2 and 3 in lines 230, 231 and 238
4) In caption of fig 6 explain what BET and CCL are.
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable comments on writing. We have explained these abbreviations in the text, and have rewritten or substantially improved unclear parts of the text
- Fig 9 insert a graphical scale
Reply: Thanks very much for the kindly comments. We added the graphical scale to Figure 9
- 3.3, improve description of geomechanical testing. How are made the specimens?
Reply: This a really helpful suggestion. We rewrite how the specimen is made in clearer language in 3.2.1 of the text
- Line 422: is PFC Particle Flow Code? If yes, provide general parameters of the model used. Also (shortly) distinguish geometrically particle model (PFC) from block model (UDEC), also valid to follow these events, in order to justify the first approach choice to modelling. This detail should alternatively be done in the Introduction, together with additional references.
Reply: Thanks very much for the valuable comments PFC is Particle Flow Code. We provided the parameters of model in the section of 3.2.2(Table2).And we have also distinguished why PFC are chosen in this paper rather than UDEC in Introduction.(from line 75 to96).
- Is there any high speed frame video done during loading of specimen ?
Reply: Thanks for the valuable comments. Unfortunately, there is no high speed frame video done during loading of specimen since we don’t have enough fund to buy the equipment.
- Set similar typing characters for References list
Reply: Thanks for the kindly reminder of reviewer. We have set similar typing characters for References list.
- Complete the listed references with, for example, the following titles that cover some parts for the "Introduction" of the paper
- Advantages of using digital image correlation techniques in uniaxial compression tests, by Ali Abdulqader et al., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.10010
- Experimental and analytical interpretation of the behaviour of laboratory tests on composite specimens, by Del Greco O. et al., 1993, Int. J. of Rock Mechanics and Min. Sci., Volume 30, Issue 7, 1539 - 1543, DOI 10.1016/0148-9062(93)90153-5
- Laboratory Experiments and Grain Based Discrete Element Numerical Simulations Investigating the Thermo-Mechanical Behaviour of Sandstone by James Woodman et al., Geotech Geol Eng (2021) 39:4795–4815 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-021-01794-z
Reply: Thank you for these references, these make the review section of our article much more comprehensive and current and comprehensive. We have added them at the appropriate places in the introduction section.
