A Study on the Impacts of One-Strut Failure Scenarios for Deep Excavation in Loose to Medium-Dense Sand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to identify the impacts from the one strut failure (OSF) on deep excavations in loose to medium dense sand with respect to the strut loads and wall deflections. The results and discussion presented in this paper are interesting for the readers in the sustainability of geotechnical engineering and the relevant fields. The title of the manuscript is suitable. The following are some comments which need to be addressed by the authors to improve the manuscript.

1. Please articulate the novelty and the significance of your paper in the appropriate sections of the manuscript. What are the implications of your findings in the field of sustainable engineering and science? These are the most important criteria for acceptance.

2. Regarding the references cited in your paper, it is noted that most of them lack international frontiers. It is recommended that the authors add more recent international journal publications to enhance the persuasiveness of your research.

3. It is not clear what the basis for the parameter values in Table 3 is, please provide additional information.

4. The manuscript needs to be carefully edited by someone with expertise in technical English editing, with particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure to make the research objectives and outcomes clear to readers.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2376594

 

 

Title: The Study of One Strut Failure Scenarios for Deep Excavation in Loose

to Medium Dense Sand

 

 

Sustainability

The paper presents an interesting subject related to the failure for deep excavation in loose to medium dense sand. The following notes were outlined:

1.     Mention the name of finite element software in the “Abstract”.

2.     Page 2 – line 53: What do you mean by “failed strut that closes to the middle of deep excavation” ?

3.     Page 2: The following studies may be beneficial. You can also refer to them:

·        Al-Juari, K, A. K., Fattah, M. Y., Khattab, S. I. A., Al-Shamam, M. K., (2020), “Simulation of Behaviour of Swelling Soil Supported by a Retaining Wall”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings, https://doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.19.00152.

·        Al-Juari, K. A. K., Fattah, M. Y., Khattaba, S. I. A. and Al-Shamam, M. K., (2019), "Experimental and Numerical Modeling of Moving Retaining Wall in Expansive Soil", Geomechanics and Geoengineering, https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1645363, Taylor and Francis.

·        Salman, F. A., Fattah, M. Y., Shirazi, S. M., Mahrez, M., (2011), “Comparative Study on Earth Pressure Distribution behind Retaining Walls Subjected to Line Loads”, Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6 (11), pp. 2228-2244, 4 June, 2011, Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE ISSN 1992-2248 ©2011 Academic Journals.

 

4.     In Figure 1, the range of SPT N-values is large. Why ?

5.     Are the factor of safety values in Table 21 calculated from finite element analyses ?

6.     The values of Su in Table 2 refer to soft clays up to 8 m depth, is that correct?.

7.     Page 4: Did removal of one single strut affect the distribution of lateral earth pressure ?

8.     The results need comparison with previous studies for validation.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please refer to the attached Review and Evaluation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English writing style of the manuscript needs to be improved. There were numerous grammatical errors, and some sentences were too long, making the flow of ideas difficult to understand. Consider breaking the long sentence into several sentences so that it is easy to read and the flow of thought can easily be understood. 

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments on article “The Study of One Strut Failure Scenarios for Deep Excavation 2in Loose to Medium Dense Sand”

By FEM analysis, the author has studied the impacts from the one strut failure (OSF) to the strut loads and wall deflections on deep excavations. The differences between 3D and 2D OSF numerical models are compared and provides a correction method for the 2D model. The content of the text is interesting, but the following questions require further modification or explanation.

(1)   The purpose and necessity of this study are not appropriate explained in this paper.

The main research content of this article is the behavior of deep excavation since the OSF was released, and line 37~47 has listed several related studies, but it does not explain the innovation of the content compared to these studies. Further comparative explanation is needed

(2) There are many problems with the logic and expression of the text. For example, changing line 30~31 “In fact, the main purpose of checking OSF in design is to ensure the failure of individual strut whether or not OSF can lead to the potential failure of deep excavation” to “In fact, the main purpose of checking OSF in design is to ensure the failure of individual strut will not lead to the potential failure of deep excavation”; line 42~44 to “Phan et al. following studied the strut load transfer and distribution of horizontal caused by OSF in sandy soil”. The writing of the article needs improvement.

(3) Table 1, how is “The factor of Safety against Push-in” determined? Please explain.

(4) Line 106~117. The model needs a more detailed introduction, including the types and parameters of the contact surface, methods for simulating OSF, etc.

(5) Table 3a. Please verify the units of “Unit weight” and “Flexural stiffness”.

(6) Table 3b. Please explain the meaning of the second column in the table and explain the basis for the “Preload” value.

(7) 3.3 Conversion from 3D to 2D analyses. The struts in the 3D model will become a “wall” in the 2D model before OSF occurs, which is not in line with the actual situation. The correction of the 2D model before OSF occurs was not explained.

(8) The content of this article is entirely based on numerical analysis, and listing some stress or deformation nephogram may be more convincing.

The English should be double checked by the authors and proofed by a native speaker.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision and replies to my concerns are properly addressed. No additional comments.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The previous suggestions have been properly revised and it is recommended to accept.

The language is concise and easy to understand, without obvious grammar or logical errors.

Author Response

Kindly refer to the enclosed file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf