The Evaluation of Pipeline Protection Influenced by Causeway Embankment Using the Finite Element Method (FEM)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

to make the corrections requested

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

to make the corrections requested

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains a description of standard engineering support for a specific construction project and an attempt to simulate safety factors.

Unfortunately, the manuscript lacks the mandatory attributes of a scientific work.

(1) The purpose of the work is not clearly formulated, in particular, the scientific component is not specified.

(2) What is the scientific novelty of the research methodology?

(3) The discussion is actually only present in the title of the third chapter.

(4) The conclusions once again repeat only the obtained numerical values of the studied parameters and do not contain any summaries and generalizations.

(5) What are the prospects for future research?

I believe that the article cannot be published without radical changes aimed at eliminating the shortcomings described above.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of embankment construction on soft soil in a reclamation area, specifically focusing on the underlying gas pipeline in the Manyar-Gresik region of East Java. The study highlights the successful achievement of a safety factor exceeding the planned value of 1.5 at each construction stage, with an average safety factor of 3.0. The findings provide valuable insights into the design and implementation of embankment projects over soft soil, ensuring the integrity and stability of underlying pipelines. However, there are some specific issues that should be addressed as follows:

1-      Introduction Line 36 – 42: Including a table for comparing various reinforcement methods such as prefabricated vertical drains (PVD), geotextile reinforcement, pile reinforcement, bamboo reinforcement, and others would greatly enhance the usefulness of the paper. The suggested table can contain columns providing a description of each method, their respective advantages, and limitations. These details can be supported by appropriate references, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information presented.

2-     Line 43: The introduction would benefit from incorporating a clear description of the study's novelty and identifying the existing research gaps in this area.

3-      Line 131: The equations for calculating the modified compression index lambda (λ) and modified swelling index kappa (κ) should be added and described.

4-      Section 3.2 is not the result of the work and should be moved to the previous section, as a description of numerical modeling steps.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A case study on a causeway embankment affected by pipeline protection is carried out in this study. While some parts need improvement, this study benefits similar cases. Specific comments are listed below:

- The introduction section is too short; previous work and achievements on soft soil and construction should be introduced and explained more comprehensively. The work titled " Effect of spatial variation of strength and modulus on the lateral compression response of cement-admixed clay slab " is recommended to be referenced.

- The titles of Table 1 and Table 2 are the same; therefore, why are two tables required? Additionally, the bottom line of Table 1 is missing.

- In the FEM, how does the author consider the contact between the pipe and foundation? The work titled " Effects of response spectrum of pulse-like ground motion on stochastic seismic response of tunnel" is recommended for citation.

- There are too many items listed in the conclusion. I suggest summarizing it and explaining how the findings of the study can facilitate future work.

- The properties and constitutive model of bamboo in construction should be explained.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, I am satisfied with the authors' responses to the reviewer's comments.

Conclusion. Accept as is.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed the comments effectively. I have no further comments and recommend publication.