Next Article in Journal
Geochemical Assessment of Mineral Resource Potential in a Hg-Sb-Pb-Zn Mining Area: The Almadén and Guadalmez Synclines (South-Central Spain)
Previous Article in Journal
A Filter-Based and Parallel Unknown Tag Identification Protocol in Open RFID Systems
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Application of the Richards Model in Settlement Prediction of Loess-Filled Foundations

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11350; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211350
by Yong Yang 1,2,*, Wen Fan 1, Li Long 3, Zhangjian Xu 2, Zhihai Zhao 2 and Haifeng Zhang 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(22), 11350; https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211350
Submission received: 24 October 2022 / Revised: 6 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 November 2022 / Published: 9 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Civil Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some technical aspects have to be improved and synchronized throughout the text: font type, font size, equation editor, tabs, blank spaces, references etc.

Locally it is not clear the type of the site and structure?

It is necessary to clarify how some parameters involved in the calculation are determined.

Detailed instructions are given in the file enclosed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigates an interesting topic such as application of Richards Model in Settlement Prediction of Loess fill Foundation. The methodology is pertinent and English is also good.

However, there are several observations to be considered:

1. originality: in the introduction the novelties need to be described and listed in detatils, in order to prove the originality of the paper;

2. Table 1 and Table 5 need to stay in the same page;

3. the role of the water is not herein discussed. However, it is important at least to consider a state of the art with reference to discuss its role;

4. Figure 4-6 are not clear. Please reedit them in order to make them more readable.

5. Conclusions need to summarize the paper. The present conclusion is more suitable for a "discussion" section. So please add a Discussion section and write more pertinent conclusions

 

 

Author Response

please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the paper.

However:

1. section 6 still lacks references on the role of the water. Please refer to:

Forcellini (2020) "The role of the water level in the assessment of Seismic Vulnerability for the 23 November 1980 Irpinia Basilicata Earthquake", Geosciences 2020; 10(6):229.

2. The conclusion cannot be a list of points. The authors need to reorganize it. For example with a sumarizing paragraph. A final one should also added, for example with proposals for future work.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop