3D FEM Analysis of the Subsoil-Building Interaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The abstract should be broadened to give additional quantitative results.

2.      As your abstract's final sentence, include a "take-home" message.

3.      Put the keywords in a new order based on alphabetical order.

4.      Make each keyword in lowercase font based on MDPI format, please revise it.

5.      Nothing truly unique in its current state. Because of the lack of novel, the current study looks to be a replication or modified study since soil interaction using finite element analysis has been widely studied. The authors must describe their novel in detail. This work should be rejected owing to a major issue.

6.      In order to highlight the gaps in the literature that the most recent research aims to fill, it is crucial to review the benefits, novelty, and limitations of earlier studies in the introduction.

7.      The authors need to explain the advantages of performing computational simulation via finite element analysis for the present study in the introduction section, such as easy to asses, saving time, efficiency in human resource, and others. Also, the MDPI's suggested reverence should be applied in the explanation as follows: Computational Contact Pressure Prediction of CoCrMo, SS 316L and Ti6Al4V Femoral Head against UHMWPE Acetabular Cup under Gait Cycle. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb13020064

8.      The article structure should be Introduction – materials and methods – results – discussion – conclusion. Revise it.

9.      Instead of only using the dominating text as a present form, the authors should also include extra illustrations in the form of figures that clarify the workflow of the current study to make the reader's understanding simpler.

10.   In line 226, what ABAQUS version? it should be mentioned.

11.   Since the present study is a computational simulation. Validation with an experiment in mandatory. So, where it is? It is a very serious reason for rejecting this paper.

12.   The meshing strategy should be explained.

13.   Detailed information regarding the number of note, the number of mesh. mesh size, and mesh type should be included.

14.   The finite element analysis should be performing a mesh sensitivity study. Are the authors perform it? It should be explained. If the authors don’t do that, the present simulation is flawed and must be rejected.

15.   Finite element model with tis boiunary condition should be included.

16.   Abaqus solver, its implicit or explicit should be mentioned and discussed.

17.   The load with quasi-static or dynamic needs more explanation.

18.   Company and country area of software should be mentioned.

19.   A comparative assessment with similar previous research is required.

20.   Please include the limitation of the present study, it is missing.

21.   The conclusion is too long, please shorten it to make it concise.

22.   Mention further research in the conclusion section.

23.   The authors should give additional references from the five-years back. Preferably include MDPI-published literature.

24.   In the whole text, the authors created paragraphs that were only one or two phrases long, making the explanation unclear. The authors should extend on their explanation to generate a more detailed paragraph. It is advised each paragraph contain at least three sentences, with one sentence providing as the primary sentence and the other sentences providing as supporting sentences. For example, line 226-228.

25.   English needed to be proofread by authors due to grammatical mistakes and English style. Using the MDPI English editing service would be an option.

26.   Please review and confirm that the writers followed the MDPI format exactly, edit the current form, and recheck in addition to the other issues that have been mentioned.

 

27.   Overall, the present article quality is too poor. Further improvement is mandatory after this revision. The reviewer gives the chance for the author's improvement in their paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

The paper presents a Geotechnical modeling study entitled “3D FEM Analysis Of The Subsoil-Building Interaction”’. The novelty of the paper is very good.

The manuscript structure presented by the authors is clear to the reader but some improvements are required (e.g., rewriting introduction, Experimental Program and Results and Discussion). Although the authors have tried to present a scientific explanation for the results, in some cases it is required a better and deeper interpretation. The final decision is to Reject the manuscript in the present form (but encourage the authors to resubmit an improved version of the manuscript).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewers greatly appreciate the efforts that have been made by the author to improve the quality of their articles after peer review. I reread the author's manuscript and further reviewed the changes made along with the responses from previous reviewers' comments. Unfortunately, the authors failed to make some of the substantial improvements they should have made making this article not of decent quality with biased, not cutting-edge updates on the research topic outlined. In addition, the author also failed to address the previous reviewer's comments, especially on comments number 5 (more explanation of the wort from present study need highlight in more advance), 6 (too simple, need more comprehensive since present study is lack of novel), 7 (not followed suggestion perfectly with the reference), and 11 (appropriate validation is needed with justification). With all due respect, the reviewer opposed this article to be published and must be rejected. Thank you very much for the opportunity to read the author's current work.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I do not agree with complete rejection of my article. The decision to refuse to publish my article is incomprehensible to me. After the first review, I improved the article, putting in a lot of work and time. I referred to each comment from the reviewer, introducing improvements to the article, the more complete rejection comes as a surprise to me.

I also referred to the comments mentioned in the review:

Comment 5 - the article emphasizes and emphasizes the importance of the research. The attention was paid to the small number of such analyses due to the labor-intensity and the uniqueness of these studies for loess within the Nałęczów Plateau.

Comment 6 - the article has been supplemented in accordance with the reviewer's comment. The lack of analyses covering the entire buildings was indicated, their scope was generally smaller, and no analyses were made for the loess of the Nałęczów Plateau. In addition, it was noted that despite a similar origin (loess) soils may behave differently in different parts of the world.

Comment 11 - as it was written in response to the review, the highest level of verification of computational analyses of building settlement is geodetic measurements carried out on a real object. Such measurements were made to verify the calculations. In addition, verifications were performed at other levels as also indicated in the reply.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

thank you for improve your manuscript. 

thank you