Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with a local topic related to the Slovak Railway Technical Regulation for determining the resistance to deformation of sub-ballast layers. The role, technical requirements and position of sub-ballast layers did not define in this manuscript. The conducted experimental work aimed to compare the values ​​of the static modulus of deformation using  DB A.G. and SR test procedures. The significance of the conducted experimental measurements is local and should be recommended to a Slovak journal that publishes professional papers.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for his review of the manuscript. The attached file contains all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting comparison but this is a publication mainly for engineers. Little impact on the advance of science

 

Part 3 proposes to add results from each point using Figure 5

Figure 3 Poor quality of the legend, maybe the legend will be part of the caption?

Figure 6 is not sufficiently explained where the +-2MPa uncertainty comes from

Figure 12 poor drawing quality

Figure 12-14 Is the quadratic function the best? It has its extremum somewhere. Think of another relationship

Where is the evaluation of measurement uncertainty?

 Greetings

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for his review of the manuscript. The attached file contains all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper focuses on the analysis of the values of the static modulus of deformation obtained by two different methods and determine the correlation between the measured values of the static modulus of deformation. Also, it aimed to develop a numerical model characterising the behaviour of the loaded environment during the experimental measurements using the finite element method, which can subsequently be used for the design of the structural composition of the sub-ballast layers.

The paper is well-written. Some comments should be considered for revision as follows.

1. Please explain the results in the abstract.

2. The references cited in the introduction are too old, so it is suggested to use recent references instead.

3. There are too many introductions about DRETM research in section 1.2 and the correlation with the article content is poor.

4. The text in Figures 1 and 2 is blurry compared to other images.

5. The loading steps in two different test procedures are divided into 6 and 4 times, respectively. Please describe how this is divided. In the DB A.G. test procedure section, the load acting on the circular plate is divided into 6 stages that cannot be equally divided. Why not divide it into 5 stages that can be equally divided or other multiple stages that can be equally divided.

6. In the DB A.G. test procedure section, when releasing a load, the meaning of releasing loads 50, 20, and 2% is to release the load until it reaches 50, 20, and 2%, or to release the relevant load each time. Please clarify.

7. Please indicate the units for each data in Figure 5.

8. The text description below Table 2 is somewhat redundant.

9. Please indicate the meaning of each curve representation in Figure 10.

10. Is it necessary to supplement the data of the first and second rows of measurement points, as well as the second and second rows of measurement points, in order to ensure the completeness of 6 test results in the finite element model test results? Please provide a brief explanation.

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for his review of the manuscript. The attached file contains all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript presents an interesting topic . The reviewer has some comments to improve the quality of the manuscript .

 

 

In the abstract section, please present the findings of this study in quantitive method and highlight the main outcomes. Most of it concentrate on the purpose of the study.

 

The research gap should be highlighted to show the novelty of this study.

 

The review section needs to rearrange to be concise.

 

The objectives of the manuscript should be highlighted.

 

The theorical review should be simplified. 

 

The methodology of the research should be simplified and presented in a better way.

 

The findings of this study are based on the static modulus which didn't represent the real case as of the design methods require the dynamic modulus. The authors should discuss what is the idea of using the static modulus instead of dynamic modulus.

 

 

 

The conclusions section should be simplified.

 

The limitations of this study should be highlighted.

 

Many of the cited references are too old. Please update the cited references.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for his review of the manuscript. The attached file contains all responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still believe that the topic of research, the results of which are presented in the manuscript, has exclusively local professional significance.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors didn't address most of the reviewer comments. Please address them.