A Simplified Mechanical Model and Analysis for the Settlement Deformation of Buried Pipelines Caused by Open-Cut Excavation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is presented a case study in the deformation of the pipelines caused by adjacent excavations, the following corrections may help improve the manuscript:

1) many new recent publications are not cited like

a ) https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-10-2021-0196

b) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15124051

c)Guo, Panpan, Xiaonan Gong, Yixian Wang, Hang Lin, and Yanlin Zhao. "Analysis of observed performance of a deep excavation straddled by shallowly buried pressurized pipelines and underneath traversed by planned tunnels." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 132 (2023): 104946.

b)Yang, Y., Chen, C., Liu, C., Huang, L., Chen, W., Lin, N., Cui, J. and Xie, W., 2023. Performance of a deep excavation and the influence on adjacent piles: A case history in karst region covered by clay and sand. Underground Space, 8, pp.45-60.

d)Uribe-Henao, A.F., Arboleda-Monsalve, L.G. and Mackie, K., 2023. Building Response to Excavation-Induced Ground Movements from a Nonlinear-Inelastic Perspective. Journal of Structural Engineering, 149(4), p.04023021.

2)page  3 line 2 use other words than strong like large, huge etc...

3) Before introducing Eq. 4,  the Winkler equation must be introduced

4) Figure 10 bigger value of k is needed  to cover the full range of soil subgarde moduli

5) Table 1 cohesive is not a force, it is apparently a strength!

6) the paper in current from is quit length, if shortened will be better, by regrouping the figure together

 

NA

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and would also appeal the readership of this journal. However, there are basic flaws, which require a substantial revision. Some of them are highlighted as under: 

1- Quality of written English is very poor. There are plenty of grammatical and verbal mistakes. The authors must engage with a professional English editor to rectify all these issues.

2- First line of the abstract must be deleted. Come to the point, right away!

3- Lines 14-15: Analytical analysis? It must be former only.

4- Please revisit and simplify the title. It sounds very long and confusing.

5- Line 17: analytic must be analytical.

6- Line 17-20 must be re-phrased or split in two or three sentences for the sake of clarity. There are many such issues with the manuscript, please look into each carefully.

7- Lines 20-21: sentence contains a lot of grammatical errors

8- In fact, all sentences from Line 21 to 31 contain significant grammatical errors.

9- Second paragraph of the Introduction is too long and may be split in two.

10- Where are the numerical model parameters? If the physical and numerical models are the same? If yes, then why not to refer it as a numerical model?

11- The authors claim to have used the existing elastic beam theory. If true, what is the innovation in this work? Please highlight, and also describe the scope and limitations of your model.

12- I could not see any schematic view of your numerical model. Similarly, there is no mention of the conditions and scenario considered for the analysis. Please elaborate these aspects.

Extremely very bad written quality of this manuscript. A major revision under the supervision of a professional English editing service is highly recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper present a simple and practical calculated method of buried pipelines settlement deformation by considering sensitivity impact of various parameters on the settlement displacement.

All the comments and notes are added in a PDF file, especially about improving sentence structure, abstract, quality of some figures, and etc. To improve the paper for publication, authors are requested to take into account those comments.

 

Sincerely

SM

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx