This study presents an improved finite element simulation model to evaluate the correct infiltration rate of IBPP. An effective infiltration rate is introduced in the proposed approach, addressing the limitations of traditional methods due to the influence of test area size and test location. This research topic is interesting and pertinent. The following specific suggestions are offered to further strengthen the manuscript: 

1. In the introduction, the author mentioned that traditional method tends to underestimate the infiltration rates. Could the authors clarify whether this underestimation is consistently observed across various scenarios? It would be beneficial to include a comparative analysis between the infiltration rates obtained via the proposed FEM model and those derived from traditional method to support the claim. 

2. The manuscript mentions the use of a back-calculation technique to determine input parameters such as hydraulic conductivity (kp) and coefficient (np) for joint sand permeability, based on experimentally determined traditional (ASTM) infiltration rates. Providing more explanation of this technique would be beneficial. 

3. Elimination of the dependence of the test area relies on that the calculated infiltration rate is dependent of the test area, but independent of the numbers of repeating patterns. The latter hypothesis is supported by the FEM simulation results. However, can the author provide theoretical justification or cite relevant literature to support the former assumption? (“In theory, if the test area is sufficiently large, the infiltration rate will be independent of the test area”)