Truck Impact on Buried Water Pipes in Interdependent Water and Road Infrastructures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.

- The introduction section is detailed, but needs a significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references.

- More suitable title should be selected for the article. Title should decrease to 10-12 words.

- Abstract section should refer to the study findings, methodologies, discussion as well as conclusion. It is suggested to present the abstract in one 200-250 words paragraph.

- Please add as sentence or two to clearly recap how your study differs from what has already been done in literature to ascertain the contributions more strongly

- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.

- For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.

-It is suggested to add articles entitled “Samimpey and Saghatforoush, A Systematic Review of Prerequisites for Constructability Implementation in Infrastructure Projects”, “Döner. Comparison of Corrosion Behaviors of Bare Ti and TiO2” and “Majeed and Erzaij. Cost & Time Interaction Behavior on Construction Materials Procurement and Execution Processes in Infrastructure Projects” to the literature review.

- Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.

- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?

- This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with authors previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, first of all let me express my compliments for the interesting subject of your research. I do not have serious negative considerations about your paper in its structure, results showed and analysis about them.
I think the paper is interesting and it could be considered for publication. However, this paper can be further improved in the following points.

- the English level should be improved.
- the "Introduction" should be shorten;
- "future works" should be better explained

Please improve english and references, e.g.:
- Reliability estimation of reinforced slopes to prioritize maintenance actions
Bahootoroody, F., Khalaj, S., Leoni, L., ...Di Bona, G., Forcina, A. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18(2), pp. 1-12, 373;
- Critical risks method (CRM): A new safety allocation approach for a critical infrastructure
Di Bona, G., Forcina, A., Falcone, D., Silvestri, L. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2020, 12(12), 4949

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All of my concerns have been fully addressed in the revised version.