Next Article in Journal
The Taconnaz Rockfall (Mont-Blanc Massif, European Alps) of November 2018: A Complex and At-Risk Rockwall-Glacier-Torrent Morphodynamic Continuum
Next Article in Special Issue
Discrete Element Simple Shear Test Considering Particle Shape
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Duck Bile Acid Extract on the Fecal Microbiota, Short Chain Fatty Acids, Fat Digestibility and Blood Biochemical Indices in Cats
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Hypoplastic Constitutive Model for Sandy Soil Considering the Rotation of the Principal Stress Axis
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Study on Factors Influencing Ground Subsidence and a Risk Analysis Method Using the Attributes of Sewer Pipes

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9714; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179714
by Sungyeol Lee, Jaemo Kang * and Jinyoung Kim
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9714; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179714
Submission received: 24 July 2023 / Revised: 18 August 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023 / Published: 28 August 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigated the factors affecting ground subsidence and risk assessment using sewer pipe data. In general, the prediction accuracy is not high and this is understandable because the analysis relies heavily on the data obtained. Hence, it is important to ensure integrity and accuracy of the data. First, the method in data collection is not clear; the sample size, the location, and does the pipe data applies to the same batch of pipes or is it a collective data? Authors should also show samples of raw data and explain how the numbers (pipe age, diameter etc) were obtained. Second, the assumptions and limitations used in the analysis should be clearly stated, and the rationale in choosing these analysis method must be explained. Third, since no actual data is collected by the authors, the primary source(s) must be clearly stated. Is the data available to the public? Third, the application of the proposed solution may not be feasible before pipe data is adequately and accurately collected.

L46 - "facilities" should not be used to describe pipes.

L78 - CCTV should be spelt in full when first appear

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your feedback to help us improve our paper. We have read your comments carefully and made the necessary corrections. If you have any further questions, please leave a comment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1line 66: Pipe ID (Inner diameter?), please provide the full expansion/acronym for the first occurrence.

Line 78 CCTV( closed-circuit television?)

2) Line 140: Please describe the definition of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and provide its calculating methods.

3)Lines 228-233 The Pearson’s correlation coefficient, is mentioned multiple times. Please create a separate section to provide a detailed explanation. It is recommended to include an heatmap here for results.

4)Line 239: The full name of AHP should be provided for the first occurrence in this section.

5)Line 347: Please provide a table for database, providing the range of each contributes.

Author Response

저희 논문을 개선하는 데 도움이 되는 귀하의 피드백에 진심으로 감사드립니다. 귀하의 의견을 주의 깊게 읽고 필요한 수정을 했습니다. 추가 질문이 있으시면 댓글을 남겨주세요.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop