Construction Technology and Service Performance of Waterproof Curtain for Foundation Pit in Large-Particle Pebble Gravel Layer of Yangtze River Floodplain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview
Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)
Manuscript ID: applsci-3031408
Type: Article
Title: Construction technology and service performance of waterproof curtain for foundation pit in large-particle pebble gravel layer of Yangtze River floodplain
Section: Civil Engineering
Special Issue: Foundation Treatment in Civil Engineering
Comment and decision: The article is written correctly and well. No factual errors were perceived in it.
It did not receive very high marks in the survey as it is more of a practical article describing the technology used.
Nevertheless, in the reviewer's opinion, it can be published in Applied Sciences, as it shows a good implementation of the foundation pit and is a guideline for researchers-practitioners.
Some editorial faults were perceived in the text, which should be corrected before the article is published.
Notes and comments (see *.pdf, please).
Yours faithfully.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are some flaws in the text that should be proofread by an expert or native English speaker.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors are trying to describe an interesting geotechnical implementation regarding a waterproof curtain for a foundation pit, having adverse effects of groundwater in a particular area in China.
A first comment reading carefully the paper is that the paper could be of interest to the readership of the Specific Issue (e.g. Foundation Treatment in Civil Engineering). On the other hand, in my opinion, the way this under-review manuscript is presented, looks like a technical report rather than a classical scientific article.
However, the manuscript is clear, relevant to the field of Geotechnical Engineering and presented in a well-structured manner.
On the other side, there are a few sentences that need rephrasing for clarity, not to mention some modifications should be made regarding figures readability and better conclusion ending.
Therefore, I recommend minor revision. I explain my points in more detail below. Thus, to make this paper publishable, the authors need to respond to the following remarks.
Minor comments:
1. Line 33-34: What do authors mean by saying: “the diseases of pit-wall leakage” and “basal heave”? Please, explain more analytically in the text.
2. Figure 1 should be accompanied by an extra reference map of the broader area, so the reader of this manuscript can understand where in China this study area is located exactly.
3. Lines 81-82: Please, insert a relative map.
4. Lines 144-150: I would suggest authors reexamine the syntax of those lines. For instance, my recommendation is to merge the first two sentences into one major one (e.g. “Because the plane area of the foundation pit is large, and the thick confined aquifers exist under the base slab, to reduce the risk, double-row cast-in-place piles (ABCDEF, CcbadE) are used as retaining structure to divide the original super-large foundation pit into two areas for zoned excavation”.
Then, you may proceed like this: “TRD (Trench cutting Re-mixing Deep wall) technology is used to build a waterproof curtain between two rows of piles to cut off the underlying confined aquifers, and tube well dewatering and open drainage of water are used in the pit to low the groundwater level, as shown in Figure 4.”
5. Figure 5: Please enlarge the descriptive terminology inside the scheme, so to be more readable.
6. Lines 314-315: Something is missing from a syntax point of view.
7. Lines 350-351: An ending sentence or paragraph should be written, in order to conclude the usefulness of the described methodology and how it might be used in similar geotechnical – geological infrastructure projects.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI don't have any comments to make.
