Development and Application of Precast Concrete Double Wall System to Improve Productivity of Retaining Wall Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the paper: "Development and Application of Precast Concrete Double Wall System to Improve Productivity of Retaining Wall Construction".

Remark 1: Carefully written work but the scope of the paper is limited.

Remark 2: The work focuses on the following joints: vertical joint, horizontal joint and wall-foundation joint. And how are they implemented in corners, e.g. perpendicular walls?

Remark 3: Why does the load -strain graph only show 3 models?

Remark 4: Graph (figure 4) on the horizontal axis has no description of the units.

Remark 5: Too small descriptions on some drawings (e.g. in Figure 6)

Remark 6: The equations should be numbered separately

Author Response

We tried to reflect the reviewers' comment in revised manuscript. Please find out the response letter which is attched by a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The solution presented by the authors is interesting however, the PCDW solution itself is not a novelty as I can recall several companies that already presented these solutions. Thus, the authors must be very clear about the scope of the manuscript. Perhaps quantifying the economic feasibility of the PCDW solution for retaining wall construction would highly enhance the manuscript.

Below I list a few issues that I recommend the authors to address:

In the introduction section, especially the paragraph in lines 49 to 54, there is any bibliographic reference. As the PCDW is not a new solution, it would be appropriate to mention more clearly other studies that analysed this solution and how the present manuscript adds to the existing knowledge.   

It is possible to give an idea of the actual costs of the RC (or RC-PC) and PCDW solutions? I believe this would fit well in section 4.2. It is indicated a percent comparison, but it not clear how it was determined or what are the partials involved. For example, in the case of the PCDW solution, it is accounted the lifting equipment?

Regarding the comparison, the authors compare with the reinforced concrete method but using the precast solution (PC)? Does the same apply to the construction cost percent presented in table 3?

In section 4.1, the caption of Table 2 is wrong. The text was copied from caption of Table 1. Also regarding table 2, what is exactly the judgment criterion? Is it the spacing between observations?

The sentence in page 10 line 223 to line 235: “It was also confirmed that the PCDW system can simplify construction management and improve constructability because PC can be used for the entire framework of apartment underground parking lots.” is not very clear to me. Perhaps the message could be clearer.

Author Response

We tried to reflect the reviewers' comments in revised manuscript. Please find out the response letter which is attached by a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf