Pile Arrangement for Minimizing Plastic Deformation in Pile-Supported Immersed Tunnel under Seismic Loads
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFull title: Pile arrangement of minimizing for the plastic region of the pile in pile supported immersed tunnel under seismic loads
Ms. Ref. No.: applsci-2693214
Pile arrangement for optimizing the plastic region of the SCP under dynamic loading was investigated in the above submission and developed a model for sand compaction pile-immersed tunnel-sea water pressure (SIS) system. According to the research, the "X"-shaped and rectangular pile groups cause the energy residual index (ERI) of the piled foundation to increase because they alter the pile spacing and cause instability in the quadrilateral prism damping unit that is produced by the piles and the earth.
The topic discussed is within the journal's purview. Editing in language, grammar, and syntactic is necessary for this work. An English language expert should review the utilization of the language. To support the suggestion for publishing, the following points should be appropriately revised.
- Introduction section has to be revised properly, highlighting few codal guidelines, importance of conducting this research on this particular topic, and also the main contribution of this work.
- Load carrying and transfer mechanisms of the considered structure need to be written in detail.
- Overview of the previous works summarized in the literature is not in depth; more papers need to be added in the reference list and also the authors must highlight the unique contributions of the previously conducted works; recommended references; : - Structures, Elsevier, 31, pp. 428-461, DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.102 ;;;
- A number of response parameters were considered viz., ALLKE, ALLSE etc., but on what basis these parameters have been selected is not clear to this reviewer.
- A few presumptions are mentioned in different parts. Justifications based on these presumptions ought to be given. It is necessary to assess how they will impact the outcomes.
- Finally, recommendations based on your study must be included. Would you advise reexamining the government regulation or guideline for the building of earthquake-resistant structures? Is a change necessary?
This reviewer rates this article as requiring "Major Revision" and advises the authors to rewrite it in order to make it more concise, comprehensible, and to emphasize its original contributions before resubmitting.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Editing in language, grammar, and syntactic is necessary for this work. An English language expert should review the utilization of the language. To support the suggestion for publishing, the following points should be appropriately revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presented an experimental study on the pile arrangement of tunnels under seismic loads. My biggest concern is the scale and likelihood of the experiment.
(1) Line 100 stated that the model is 0.3*0.3*0.5m. However, Figure 1a showed a box with internal dimensions of 0.3*0.3*0.3m. The schematic diagram in Figure 1b gave an estimation of pile zone less than 10 cm. This is way too small for experiment.
(2) The aim of the study is optimization for immersed tunnel. However, water was not introduced in the model. Sand and EPS (with high permeability) would have very different behaviors to silt and clay.
Here are some minor comments:
Line 83: Not sure what the informed message is.
Figure 3a: Vertical axis should be "Finer (%)" or "Cumulative mass (%)". It should stop at 100%.
Figure 4: This is the input data. Real output acceleration could be different due to some delay in movement. My experience showed that when the change of acceleration is quick like in this figure, there may be some lag of seismic impact on the foundation. Monitoring is required.
Section 4.2 must be described in details. This does not help other researchers to redo the simulation.
Line 283-284: The statement is not true. The numerical show a fluctuation around -15mm throughout the simulation. Meanwhile, experiment result showed a good settling process.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
A thorough proof reading may be required. The paper cannot be understood without a very careful read.
For example, the title "Pile arrangement of minimizing for..." does not ring a bell. There are several ways to rename. It could be "Optimization of pile arrangement to minimize the plastic deformation in pile-supported immersed tunnel under seismic loads".
Line 14: "The physical experiment results are verified by ABAQUS finite element 14 analysis." This does not make sense if the authors want to state that a numerical study can verify an experimental study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript is regarding the Pile arrangement of minimizing for the plastic region of the pile in pile supported immersed tunnel under seismic loads. The work is well written and comprehensive. Here are some comments
1
The phrase "This usually causes damage to the underwater foundation, such as collapse and settlement" is quite awkward. Please rephrase. You may want to say "This usually causes damage to the underwater foundation, such as collapse and differential displacements" or alternatively "This usually causes damage to the underwater foundation, such as collapse and large displacements to the foundation"
2
Line 44. I think that "improved" should be substituted into "improving". Since it is a general meaning there is more applicable to say improving foundations.
3
Figure 4
Please explain why you used this accelerometer. Moreover, please tell what is the dominnat period of this earthquake. An acceleration specturm figure as an additional feature to this earthquake would make the understanding of the selection of this earthquake more evident.
4
Line 253
Modified Cam Clay models should have this citations for reference
A1 Kavvadas and Amorosi 2000 A constitutive model for structured soils Géotechnique 50(3):263-273
A2 Savvides A A Papadrakakis M 2021 A computational study on the uncertainty quantification of failure of clays with a modified Cam-Clay yield criterion SN Applied Sciences 659 2021
5
Chapter 4.4
Figure 10 a. To a viewer this image does not indicate a good fit between the numerical and the experimental results. If the goal is to find only the stabilized value of settlement then it is fine. If the goal is to find the time function of the settlement there is a divergence. The authors are invited in both figures 10a and 10b to define the largest relative divergence between the experimental and numerical results and set a threshold to define that if this largest relative divergence is less than the threshold (e.g. 5%) then the results are said to be satisfactory. This justification would strengthen the works value
6
ALLKE abbreviation what stands for? please explain
7
Figure 11
Please add the values of θ1, θ2, θ3 to be more easy to follow.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
ΝΑ
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript "Pile arrangement of minimizing for the plastic region of the pile in pile supported immersed tunnel under seismic loads" contains several inaccuracies and ambiguities regarding, among others, size designations, which requires the authors' response. In its current form, the article is not suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.
General remarks
1. Authors should explain why they are writing about model validation using ABAQUS software. Meanwhile, validation means checking the proposed model based on experiment
2. Authors should define SCP replacement ratio and length-to-finish ratio.
3. It should be explained why it was decided to choose such and not other pile arrangements.
4. The authors should provide the definition of the angle θ. It should be explained why the angle θ3 in Fig. 2 is 90° and not 45°
5. In Fig. 5, the depth in meters is shown on the ordinate axis. However, in chapter 3.1, the authors describe situations in units of pile diameter D. Either the pile diameter D should be determined or the multiplicity of D should be marked on the ordinate axis.
Specific remarks
6. 13 line: The abbreviation “SIS” should be specifically explained.
7. 14 line: Explain the abbreviation “SCP”.
8. 15 line: Write: ... smokes in an "X" arrangement.
9. 22 line: The abbreviation ALLKE and ALLSE should be specifically explained.
10. 94 line: Please write where exactly the sensors on the piles were located. Were there sensors on all piles?
11. 99 line: The title of the chapter should be changed, e.g. Research materials.
12. 103 line: explain the abbreviation “EPS”.
13. 111 line Table 1: Describe the values of dEPS, Vsoil/VEPS,
14. 114 line Fig.3b: It should be "kPa".
15. 127 line: Title of the drawing, e.g. "Acceleration - time relationship" You should write what the unit "g" is, i.e. acceleration due to gravity.
16. 151 line: It should be: the friction – settlement relationship (f-s).
17. 157 line: It should be "kPa".
18. 190 line: Please explain how ERI and Angular gradient are determined.
19. 210 line: The damping coefficient ratio γ should be defined.
20. 214 line: please explain what Δ means.
21. 292 line, Fig 10b: It should be on the "kPa" ordinate axis.
22. 316 line, Fig 11: Should be "kJ".
23. 346 line, Fig 12: Should be "kJ".
I recommend an in-depth review of the manuscript, including comments, to make it an article suitable for publication in the Applied Sciences.
The article should not be published in its current state.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe reviewer’s comments and queries pointed before revising the manuscript have not been appropriately responded. At the current state, the reviewer cannot help to judge that the manuscript does not reach the level of the Journal.
The following queries come out. The manuscript may be accepted under the condition that these queries will be perfectly responded.
1. The authors only added the names of the design standards, manual, and codes of practices; however, fail to highlight the codal guidelines and provisions.
2. Most of the papers added by the authors are very old and insignificant;
3. Past contribution of the research works including recent papers must be properly reviewed and summarized in the manuscript; highlighting the unique contribution and also the research gaps; recommended papers: - Structures, Elsevier, 31, pp. 428-461, DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.01.102.
4. Novelty of the work is still not highlighted and unclear to this reviewer. Same as the application of conducting such a study is not clear.
5. Authors fail to address the following previous comment "A number of response parameters were considered, viz., ALLKE, ALLSE etc., but on what basis these parameters have been selected is not clear to this reviewer."; proper explanation need to be given why such energy based parameters were considered? the mechanism of these parameters.
6. Very basic discussion of the results are given by the authors; and hence need to be revised properly
Double Major Revision: If the authors of the manuscript are able to address all the aforementioned issues and make the necessary amendment accordingly, the article may possibly be published in this Journal of MDPI.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have provided some good responds. However, my biggest concerns were not well addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper is still difficult to understand. It is not only about gramma but also the way authors deliver messages.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the author's efforts in revising this manuscript as per the suggestions suggested by the reviewers. The authors have addressed the comments satisfactorily. This reviewer recommends the publication of this article subject to the approval of the editorial board.
