Development of a Model Material for Dynamic Geotechnical Model Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 59, 135. In my opinion, instead of using the phrase "we combined, .... we adopted …", it would be better to write it in passive form. Also elsewhere in the text.

Line 83. The marking of [M,L,T] is not clear. Please explain.

Line 118. Relevant literature……  A square bracket should be added here with the numbers of this literature from the list of references.

Table 2. and line 312 is not clear. The percentage of the mixture components should be 100%. We have much more in the table for individual groups. Please explain.

Line 136. On what basis were the water-solid ratio and the amount of glycerin determined? Please explain in the text.

Line 157. What is the accuracy class of these systems? Please complete in the text.

Line 200. It is not clear what the bar and the red value mean in Figure 3. Please explain in the text.

Line 200. For what purpose is the Range shown in Fig. 3? What does it mean? Please explain.

Line 226. When specifying formulas, eg. 12, 13, 16 the source of the literature from which they were taken should necessarily be given.

Line 226. The random component should also be shown in Formula 12.

Line 236. The analysis of the correlation between the individual independent variables should be shown. There is also a lack of analysis concerning the fulfillment of the basic assumptions of multivariate regression by the data and the model. These assumptions should be shown and checked! I am asking for a supplement.

Line 245. The ~ character should be replaced with -

Fig 5 – 9. What kind of determination coefficient is shown in the figures? For multivariate regression this is important and should be clarified in the text.

Fig 6. Eg coefficient for variable C is equal to 0.000017? Does this variable significantly affect the model? As in Table 4, where the significance of the entire model was examined, the significance of individual variables in the model should be examined beforehand. It is very important. Please supplement.

Line 322. “required values based on the similarity ratio” is not clear. Please explain.

Conclusions should be reviewed taking into account the comments of this review.

References: The description of the bibliography items is incomplete. For example, in items 26, 27 there are no titles. The source in item 31 is missing. Necessarily to improve.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations for the paper. It is an interesting one.

A few remarks

Line 4 the affiliation is the same for all authors, so delete ‘1’and replace it by a,b, … for email address

Line 115 correct to’3. Experimental design’

I suggest to remove figure 2, it does not add any value to paper

Line 160 correct to ‘4. Experimental ...’

Figures 3 and 4-use the same number of digits, even the last one is 0 (zero)

Line 214 correct to ’5. Correlation …’

Leave a space line after tables 4 and 6

Line 338 Correct to ‘7. Conclusions’

Check the references, you have used [J] for most of them

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 83. The new sentence after the full stop should be adapted to the English grammatical form and should start with a capital letter. Please correct.

Line 231. The earlier comment was not about adding a sentence about a random factor, but about adding this factor to formula No. 12. Please correct.

Line 254. What kind of determination coefficient is shown in the figures? The adjusted coefficient of determination should be used in multivariate regression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx