Study on the Law of Influence of Seepage Field Anomalies on Displacement Field Induced by Leakage of Enclosure Structure
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through carefully the content and would like to inform that the manuscript was not professionally prepared. The paper is not well-structured and not well-written. It is very “messy”. The line numbers’ are missing. There is a lot of mistakes, e.g. Zhang et al. [11] and Han- what does it mean- ”and Han”? It is not scientific level. The references should be completed. As a general rule, it is better to use the references too often than not enough. In my opinion, this paper should be definitely improved (according to journal requirements), methods should be briefly explained, and rewrite.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 4 does not clearly indicate the inner support, retaining structure and leakage point and the distance between the monitoring sites should be included.
The figures containing graphs should be revisited and all the headings should be made the same size and type of font. The aspect ratio of the graphs as well as the scale should be the same when a set of three graphs is provided and the reader needs to compare the trends. All the axis labels should start with upper case titles.
In Figure 5 the vertical axis should be "Underground water level (m)" and the horizontal axis "Foundation pit depth (m)".
In Table 1 the first soil type cannot be "grain filling", please check the translation. It could be a sandy material?
I am concerned about the values used in Table 2 as they do not seem to be realistic. For steel the density and modulus of elasticity are correct, but the poisson's ratio of 0.3 seems high. The density and poisson's ratio of concrete are correct, but it is absolutely impossible to have a concrete modulus of elasticity of 315 GPa - this is about 10 times the typical stiffness of concrete. This value must be corrected and the finite element results corrected before the paper can be published. What material was used for the retaining piles? The density of the piles are too low for steel and too high for concrete. Again the modulus of elasticity cannot be correct for the density provided. The poisson's ratio also seems too high for concrete piles. These values will yet again affect all calculations and the numerical model must be corrected before the paper can be published.
The numerical model used was Mohr Coulomb and the spelling must be corrected throughout the document.
From Figure 7, it seems as if the different soil types in Table 1 was used in the model, but there is no indication of the layer depth used for each soil type. An extra column containing layer depths can be included in Table 1.
Some explanation of the percentage values and displacements in Figure 8 is required. I assume that the displacement values are linked to colours in the figures and not directly to the depth below the surface? Is the total depth of each of the 6 strips 30m? Why was the scale of the last strip (level 6) chosen to not include red/ maximum displacements? Was the increase in deflection for the sixth excavation less than expected? Why was the top of the range not chosen as 53.3mm as indicated in the text? Please remember that these values will change if the support stiffness changes.
Figure 9, 10 and 11 must be drawn to the same scale. For these figures the distance from the seepage point decreases from 0.01m to no seepage point and the same sequence should be used for the next set of figures.
There is a big problem with Figures 12, 13 and 14 and I believe the wrong figures were pulled into the paper with Figure 13 and Figure 14 being identical.
Before any conclusions can be made, the numerical analysis should be conducted using realistic material properties.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved. However, please check the punctuation once again.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. I have checked the punctuation marks in the paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Although there are still grammatical and layout errors that should be corrected, the paper can be published from a technical point of view.
Author Response
Thanks for your comment. I have checked and revised the grammar and layout of the paper.
