Geodetic Applications and Improvement of the X- and L-Method of Deformation Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFor the deformation analysis problem of geodetic network, this paper discusses the test of congruence, the testing of transformation of a single triangle and the calculation of other parameters caused by the coordinate change between two epochs in a two-dimensional geodetic network, and puts propose to some corrections on the original Munich method, and verifies the feasibility of the proposed method with a famous experiments. The article is innovative, but there are some formatting and writing problems in the article. It is recommended to accept after minor revision. The specific opinions are as follows:
（1）In lines 73, 89, 169 and 204, the rank symbol of the matrix should be rank, not rang.
（2）What does p-value mean in tables 2, 3 and 4?
（3） In the third geometry of triangles in geodetic network, the analysis results are inconsistent with the test results in Table 4. In Table 4, 1, 2, 3, 6, 13 and 14 do not reject the null hypothesis, but in the conclusion, it is true that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12 and 15 do not reject the null hypothesis.
（4）Line 318 should be Formula (34) instead of Formula (33).
（5） In Table 5, line 10, column 13, the test result is 4.28, which is greater than the critical value of 4.01 and should not be marked in green font.
（6）There are many improvements to the original algorithm, which one has the best effect?
（7）Please unify the format of the references.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review, your comments and suggestions. You can find our answers and comments in the attached file.
Sincerely,
authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
the contribution sounds interesting in general. However, the contribution and the novelty of the paper are not clear. Therefore some parts of the paper need to be revised. Below, you can find some suggestions that in my opinion will help improve the paper.
In the title of the paper is X and L method, but in the abstract there is no mention of these methods
Line 14: “Geodetic measurements form a geodetic network of triangles.” – not necessarily, we know other forms of networks
In the introduction, other methods would need to be listed and briefly described, if possible. That will help you highlight the contribution of the paper. Otherwise, it is not clear, what is the contribution and the novelty. Now it seems like an application of a known approach firstly described in 1982.
Line 27: the deformation of the object gives us info about the structural elements, damages etc. in the first place…. not just about ”seismic activity, tectonic shifts, and other geologic processes”
Line 29: what does mean “unprecedented precision”
Line: 41, why just LS? It is really dependent on the adjustment method?
Line: 44 why transformation? If the network is adjusted as a free network with the same approximate coordinates of the point, then the results will be in the same coordinate system. Also, what is the reason of using geodetic datum? For deformation measurement, a local coordinate system with a local horizon (not the surface of the ellipsoid, geoid etc.) is more appropriate, because there will not be a distance distortion etc. Especially when you want to investigate the deformation of buildings... like the case study of the dam you used
Line: 46 add the equation to separate lines and number them, in the whole text.
Section 2 methods – please explicitly mark the difference from the Munich approach and what is your contribution
Section 2.2 – please, describe the benefit compared to classic testing
Line 135,136: how we can obtain the components of the displacements of a rigid body… and why do you expect rigidity of objects?
Line 144: what are the kinematic quantities?
Section 2.3 in the title maybe it is better to use the word additional instead of the word other
Section2.3: please, describe the listed parameters, and what they actually represent
Line 250: why are you testing the change of the distance between two points, why not the coordinate changes of each point?
Section 3: a more detailed description will help to understand the experiment. I mean the measurement part the position of the points etc.
Line263: where is the modification of the Munich approach described in the paper? Now it is not clear.
Line 267: why just 5 points, on the reference points no measurements were performed?
Line 272: so also the results of the adjustment are from the paper 8?
Fig1, 2, 3 please describe what is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd geometry… how are obtained etc.
Section 4 Analysis and Discussion – the section is a summary of the results. But some discussion about the approach, benefits etc. is missing.
Table 6. A description of the values in the table is needed.
Conclusions have to be extended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for your review, your comments and suggestions. You can find our answers and comments in the attached file.
Sincerely,
authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of my suggestions were added to the paper and all the questions were answered. But still, the conclusions have to be extended.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We have taken your suggestion into account and have rewritten the 5th chapter Conclusions. We have also added additional reference [19].
You can find the new extended version in the attached file.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
