On Contraction of Three-Dimensional Multiple Shear Mechanism Model for Evaluation of Large Scale Liquefaction Using High Performance Computing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. p. 3, l. 11: normal unit vector => unit normal vector
2. p. 3, l. 14: Please show e1 and e2 in Fig. 1 or Fig. 2.
3. Eq. (8): Please show integration range.
4. I could not understand why enormous amount of memory is required to conduct integration in Eq. (8).
5. l. 5 of Section 2.2: Plane \Pi is not defined (Only written in Fig. 3)
6. p. 6 2nd line from the bottom: I could not understand “The loading condition was repeated with 30kpa”.
7. p. 7, l. 5: Why is the amount of memory reduced by the symmetrical installation of springs?
8. p. 7, 4th line from the bottom: The numbers of springs 288 and 144 should be indicated in Fig. 6. I could not understand which plots give the same degree of relative error.
9. Table 1: Niahiya/ma => Nishiyama
10. p. 11, l. 2: The reason why the viscous BC was not set on the sides of the ground model should be described.
11. p. 11, l. 8: dumping => damping
12. p. 11, l. 8: Are these damping factors also used in the soil region? I think that the damping factors for soil and those for the structure are very different.
13. Fig. 13: Please modify the color bar. It is difficult to compare Figs (a) and (b).
14. p. 13, l. 1: What is “representative calculation steps”?
15. Fig. 15: What is “values obtained by normalizing calculation memory”?
16. Section 3.3: How many (computation) nodes were used?
Author Response
I uploaded our responses to reviewer as a PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors studied the usability of the developed FEM for the evaluation of liquefaction. The reviewer feel that the developed numerical is useful for large scale computing.
1) Chapter 2
The chapter 2 is almost the same as another under-review manuscript which was submitted to the Journal of Japanese Society of Civil Engineers.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/browse/jscejam/-char/ja/
The authors of another manuscript are the same as this manuscript. The authors should cite the original one.
2) Chapter 3
There is no descriptions of the material parameters of structures.
3) Figure 10 and Table 1, 2
The types of layers do not match in Figure 10 and Table 1, 2. Use consistent name of the layers.
Author Response
I uploaded our responses to reviewer as a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors proposed a non-linear constitutive relation based on multiple shear mechanism to reduce the computational demand of seismic analysis aimed to assess soil liquefaction.
The proposed model has been verified by using a benchmark of NPP and well-established soil model.
The proposed model pretty well simulates the cyclic mobility by reducing the required CPU memory.
The paper is well-structured and well-written. Interesting results have been obtained.
I believe the paper is worth of publication as it is but you may consider to change the title tin order to highlight your proposed model
Author Response
I believe the paper is worth of publication as it is but you may consider to change the title tin order to highlight your proposed model
We changed the title as follows:
"On Contraction of Three-dimensional Multiple Shear Mechanism Model for Evaluation of Large Scale Liquefaction Using High Performance Computing"
