Force Analysis of Masonry Cave-Dwelling Structure Based on Elastic Center Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript investigates through an analytical work the cave-dwelling structures. It is a well structured paper, it is based on a structural mechanics background, providing with sound results. Moreover, the Authors present an application of the method and a comparative analysis as well. There is only one observation, namely, there is a suggestion to the Authors to provide more comments on the advantage of the proposed solution over the three hinge arch model. Summing up, the recommendation is that the paper could be published with a minor revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are very grateful for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Force Analysis of Masonry Cave-Dwelling Structure Based on Elastic Center Method”(Research Article ID applsci-2281584). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. According to your suggestions, we have made corrections on the original manuscript. All revised portions are marked in red in the revised manuscript, and we hope that the corrections meet with approval.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #1
comment: The current manuscript investigates through an analytical work the cave-dwelling structures. It is a well structured paper, it is based on a structural mechanics background, providing with sound results. Moreover, the Authors present an application of the method and a comparative analysis as well. There is only one observation, namely, there is a suggestion to the Authors to provide more comments on the advantage of the proposed solution over the three hinge arch model. Summing up, the recommendation is that the paper could be published with a minor revision.
Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging comments on our manuscript. We really appreciate this good suggestion, and more comments on the advantage of the proposed unhinged arch model have been added to the “Conclusions” Part in lines 338-346, marked in red in the revised manuscript.
Once again, special thanks to you for your good comments which would help us to improve the quality of the paper.
Best Regards.
Yours sincerely,
Yan’e Hao
Corresponding author: Yan’e Hao
E-mail address: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposed an unhinged arch mechanical calculation model to simplify the arch ring in the masonry cave-dwelling structure. Results indicate the proposed unhinged arch calculation model are safer in the design and calculation of the cave-dwelling leg components. Though the work is effective for engineering design of cave-dwelling structures, there are still several concerns in reading through this manuscript. The reviewer suggests a major revision (mandatory).
1. In abstract, the scientific contributions of the present paper should be summarized and emphasized. Those contributions should beyond the technical details lists in the abstract.
2. The quality of Figure 1 should be improved seriously. The practical photo of cave dwellings is more attractive than those pictures, i.e. figure 3.
3. The second paragraph of section 1 should be divided.
4. For the cave construction, the following equipment is recommended “Kinematic modeling and constraint analysis for robotic excavator operations in piling construction." Automation in Construction 126 (2021): 103666.”, which is much more proper utilized on the slope or Loess Plateau.
5. Figure 2 can be improved by using different colors, i.e. yellow for soil, while red for bricks.
6. Figs. 4-7 can be integrated in one figure with (a), (b), (c), (d) respectively.
7. The parameters R, l, f should be explained below equations (2).
8. The curves of Fig. 13(a) and 14(a), 13(b) and 14(b), 13(c) and 14(c) should be listed in one plot, so that the difference of two models can be found more clearly. In other words, figures 13 and 14 can be integrated in one plot with (a), (b) and (c).
9. In conclusions, the scientific contributions should be highlights as well. What are the advantages of the proposed unhinged arch model should be listed, i. e. more reliable, more simple?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for giving us a chance to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer very much for the positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Force Analysis of Masonry Cave-Dwelling Structure Based on Elastic Center Method”(Research Article ID applsci-2281584). Those comments are so pertinent and detailed, which is very helpful to improve the quality of our paper. I have revised these questions according to the comments. All revised portions will be marked in red or highlighted the changes in the revised manuscript. Now I response the reviewer’s comments with a point by point. We sincerely hope that the corrections meet with approval, and the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Reviewer #2
comment: This paper proposed an unhinged arch mechanical calculation model to simplify the arch ring in the masonry cave-dwelling structure. Results indicate the proposed unhinged arch calculation model are safer in the design and calculation of the cave-dwelling leg components. Though the work is effective for engineering design of cave-dwelling structures, there are still several concerns in reading through this manuscript. The reviewer suggests a major revision (mandatory).
- In abstract, the scientific contributions of the present paper should be summarized and emphasized. Those contributions should beyond the technical details lists in the abstract.
Response: Thanks for your guiding comments, We have modified the “ Abstract ” part according to your suggestion in the revised manuscript. The Words in red are the changes I have made in the revised manuscript.
- The quality of Figure 1 should be improved seriously. The practical photo of cave dwellings is more attractive than those pictures, i.e. figure 3.
Response: As you suggested, we have improved the quality of Figure 1.
- The second paragraph of section 1 should be divided.
Response: We appreciate it very much for this good suggestion, and we have done it according to the comment.
- For the cave construction, the following equipment is recommended “Kinematic modeling and constraint analysis for robotic excavator operations in piling construction." Automation in Construction 126 (2021): 103666.”, which is much more proper utilized on the slope or Loess Plateau.
Response: Thanks for your good suggestions. I have added the references you mentioned that are relevant to this article.
- Figure 2 can be improved by using different colors, i.e. yellow for soil, while red for bricks.
Response: I agree that the parts of the picture are expressed in different colors. We have modified the color of Figure 2.
- 4-7 can be integrated in one figure with (a), (b), (c), (d) respectively.
Response: Thank you for the suggestions, we have integrated these figures together.
- The parameters R, l, f should be explained below equations (2).
Response: We are very sorry for our negligence, we have explained what these parameters mean.
- The curves of Fig. 13(a) and 14(a), 13(b) and 14(b), 13(c) and 14(c) should be listed in one plot, so that the difference of two models can be found more clearly. In other words, figures 13 and 14 can be integrated in one plot with (a), (b) and (c).
Response: Thanks for your kind advice. We have made corrections according to the comment.
- In conclusions, the scientific contributions should be highlights as well. What are the advantages of the proposed unhinged arch model should be listed, i. e. more reliable, more simple?
Response: Thanks for your comments, we have added “the scientific contributions” in the conclusions as “If the unhinged arch calculation model is adopted, the arch ring support is fixed, and the side cave-dwelling legs have to bear the restraining moment of the support in addition to the horizontal thrust. Compared with the three-hinged arch calculation model, the calculation results obtained by the unhinged arch calculation model are more reliable and safer in the design and calculation of the cave-dwelling leg components.”
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your reply.
Best Regards.
Yours sincerely,
Yan’e Hao
Corresponding author: Yan’e Hao
E-mail address: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept as it is.
