Improved Mandrel System for Prefabricated Vertical Drain Installation: A Macro to Micro Analysis
, Noriyuki Yasufuku 1, Ryohei Ishikura 1, Xueting Wu 1,2 and Ahmad Rifa’i 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the manuscript titled "Mandrel system to reduce the smear zone due to installation prefabricated vertical drain based on the macro to micro analysis", the micromechanical properties and microstructure analysis by examining the effect of the mandrel system using three types of PVD combined with vacuum preloading in soft soil have been investigated experimentally. In general, this research is interesting and useful. To further improve the quality of this manuscript, some suggestions are shown as follows:
1- In the "Introduction" section, it has been explained about the performance of PVD and its advantages and disadvantages and there is no explanation about the similar research done by the previous one.
2- A relative comparison should be made between the recent research with the current research idea to determine what kind of difference this research has with the previous research and what problem it practically eliminates.
3- There are several errors referencing, Error! Reference source not found, Figures and Tables in lines 78, 91, 100, 101, 148,158, 178, 189, and 222.
4- Part of the legend of Figure 2 is unclear.
5- The numbering of most of the Figures is wrong. For example, Figures 1 and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 should be 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
6- The numbering of Table 4 is wrong, which is written as "Table 1".
7- No explanation has been given about the number of tests performed for each type of PVD and the individual results of each sample. In these cases, it is better to present the results of each sample in a table.
8- Excessive referencing in the "results and discussion" section to previous research and studies.
9- The structure of the manuscript needs to be changed. It would have been better to explain the working process of each part in a separate section. In the following sections, the results obtained in the current research and the interpretation of the results were discussed. In this case, excessive referencing in the "results and discussion" section would have been avoided and the reader's focus on the current research results would have been increased.
10- The number of samples for regression and presenting the relationship is low. For each type of PVD, one or two results have often been presented. For example, in Figure 12a, with the value of R = 0.7, the regression has been performed based on one test for each type of PVD, and a relationship has been presented, which will not be reliable.
11- The references provided are mostly related to before 2005 and it is better to provide several relevant references from recent years.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. This paper studies the effect of mandrel systems on the smear zone due to PVD Installation. The paper provides good information that is valuable to practical applications.
2. The paper does not meet the publication standard and needs significant improvement. There are many grammatical errors and mistakes. Some examples are given below for authors' reference.
3. The title of the paper should be reworded to eliminate the grammatical errors and make the meaning clear.
4. In Line 38, change "to completely consolidated" to "to be completely consolidated"; for "treatment of soft soil improvement", delete "improvement".
5. Lines 78, 91, and many other places, change the "Error..."
6. Line 83, "the similarity", change "the" to "The"
7. It is difficult to relate Fig. 1b to 1a, for example, "a, xi, b" seem not match to each other.
8. Line 121, Fig. 1 should be Fig. 3a. The width is marked as b in Fig. 3, but as x in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3c, please clarify it.
9. Line 179, change "by calculated"to "by calculation"
10. Line 198, change "Last step is the analyses structure" to "Last step is to analyze structure"
11. Line 204, Fig. 3 should be Fig. 7 and 8, change the number of other figures accordingly.
12. Line 209, the definition of n' and its relationship to n are not clear.
13. Line 273, change 14 to 14 kPa.
14. Line 300, "shows" should be "show"
15. Line 308, ?95 ≤ 0.075 mm, or 75 mm, should be 0.075 m?
16. Line 420, Table 1 should be Table 4.
17. It is recommended for the authors to carefully proofread the paper or use a professional editing help before the next submission.
The English writing should be improved significantly.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer recommends some minor modifications:
1. Please use more digits in the correlation functions' equations and in the R^2 equations (e.g., Fig. 4, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Fig. 12, etc.).
2. There is a blank (white) zone in the legend of Fig. 2, please revise/fix.
3. From Section 2.2, there are a lot of "Error! Reference source not found." sentence. It means that the reference-citation "system" failed. Please fix it.
4. Please supplement your manuscript with a "Nomenclature" or "List of symbols" where all the applied symbols are explained with the used units. This table/list must be at the end of the paper.
5. Please supplement your manuscript with a "List of abbreviations" where all the applied abbreviations are explained. This table/list must be at the end of the paper.
6. The affiliations of the authors are not in the prescribed form determined in the official template file. Please revise.
7. The title of the paper can be shortened.
8. Please try to avoid using abbreviations in the abstract.
9. The units (of the parameters/symbols) must be given in the explanation section (paragraph) after each equation.
The paper needs a minor language revision (proof-reading) executed by a native English person.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The mandrel system and three types of PVD cores by large-scale consolidation testing was studied both from macro and micro scales. The work is relatively completed. For consideration before publication, the following comments are suggested for improvement.
(1) Reference citation is not working in Line 78, 91, 100...
(2) The label in Fig.2 is not shown and sheltered.
(3) What are the x1, x2 and x3 in Eq. 4-6 ?
(4) Grammar mistake exists, such as "The model usually follows the general form is determined in Equation (7)." in Line 122. Should it be "The model in a general form is determined in Equation (7)."?
(5) Line 214: Figure 3-> Figure 8.
(6) The shear test was conducted. Generally, the shear strength is closely related with the damage characteristics, which could be analysed with the analytical model (Plz ref to https://doi.org/10.1142/S1758825123500369). The results of shear damage analysis can provide a fundamental basis for stability analysis in geotechnical engineering. The shear damage model and characteristics can be reviewed. The damages both from macro and micro scale in the study may be analysed.
(7) It seems that the characteristics of the three photos are similar. The difference can be sketched in the figures.
(8) Line 214: Table 1-> Table 4.
(9) The uncertainty is an intrinsic feature in geotechnical engineering. (A practical and efficient reliability-based design optimization method for rock tunnel support. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology). The PVD design may be optimized with reliability-based design optimization method.
(10) How to find the pores or particle areas in Table 4?
Some typos should be revised, such as "The model usually follows the general form is determined in Equation (7)." in Line 122.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
Since almost the required corrections have been made, from my point of view, this article can be accepted in this journal.
Best regard,
Dr. Mohammad Sharghi
Reviewer 4 Report
Thanks for the authors's revision. I have no more queries.
