Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review the following points in your article:

- Note that in several sections the information “Error! Reference source not found” Review this in your article.

- The article doesn't seem to have enough references. This happens mainly in section 3 and 4, where the authors should discuss their results, comparing them to other similar studies.

- What are the innovations of the article? How does it differ from articles published in the field with similar themes? Please make this very clear in your article.

- Regarding the materials shown in Table 1, what are the granulometric parameters of the material like? Would it be possible to discuss this issue further? If yes, please discuss this information.

- Include the scale in Figure 4. It is important that readers of the article have an idea of the scale of the equipment developed.

- Same comment for Figure 5.

- Compare the information in Figures 9, 10 and 11 with other similar surveys. This is important for readers to understand whether the information obtained is consistent with what is expected.

- Review conclusions based on previous comments. Also, discuss the information present in the conclusion based on the experimental results obtained. Avoid using generic conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is not adequate, therefore it must be changed.

The paper needs huge corrections, starting with the written English. It is extremely difficult to understand the text and the procedure as well as the phases, the treatments and so on. You also don’t apply technical and scientific terms in the correct form. The paragraphs are long, so it is hard to follow your explanations.

I also found it very difficult to comprehend where the treatments were exactly applied, and more specifically where each one of the 3 types of foundation geotechnical improvement are being used and why. If you used project drawings, more figures and photos of the construction phases,  as a complement of the exhausting explanations in words, then it would be much more perceptible for the reader. Also, the paper “organization” and titles do not meet the criteria used for this kind of scientific paper.

The paper doesn’t bring, in my point of view, any significant outcome. It is not a research theme. It just presents a railway upgrade in order to receive high speed trains, which it was used as a case study. Furthermore, it could be of interest, if you applied more survey equipment, 4 gauges and 2 topographic marks are not enough and significant, specially since they were just applied on the surface, if I understood correctly!!

So, how can you take conclusions related to the foundation treatment? What about the upper base’s settlements. And, if during the renovation and rehabilitation works, demolitions of existing walls were performed, then why didn’t you used inclinometers? The settlements can be related to the soil horizontal decompression instead of the foundation settlements!! They are related, by means of horizontal coefficients, aren't they?!

This paper must be completely changed and improved, in order to be published on a MDPI Journal, and moreover on a special issue. 

Please take a look at my comments in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made corrections, in order to improve the document. It is difficult to explain the complexity of the works, however the authors make an effort to describe them with accuracy. Has indicated before, the survey implemented to monitor and control the parameters, should be in more quantity and type, so that engineers and researchers could have more data and outcomes. Nevertheless, it is possible to understand the global performance of the woks carried out.