Study on Mechanical Calculation Model of Arch Ring in Freestanding Stone Cave-Dwelling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments:
This paper is aimed at evaluating the safety of cave dwellings by adopting a reasonable and accurate mechanical calculation model for the arch ring of a stone cave-dwelling to reveal the distribution of internal forces in the arch ring and scientifically designing the arch ring accordingly. In their manuscript three mechanical calculation models (structural calculation diagrams) are adopted for the arch ring of stone cave-dwelling, namely, hingeless arch, two-hinged arch and three-hinged arch. The mechanical calculation results of three calculation models are compared and analyzed to clarify the difference and rationality of the stress results of the arch ring under the three mechanical calculation models, and the degree of influence on the force of the lower cave-dwelling leg members. However, the innovation and scientific significance of the present work seem to be limited. Meanwhile, new results and contributions are also limited. Given the standards of this Journal, this reviewer suggest major revision is needed.
Several questions and suggestions have been presented as follows.
1. Generally, new results, mechanism analysis and deep conclusions are suggested. The connection between calculation results and on-site results or other simulations were suggested to be included.
2. The introduction is just a display of literature, summaries and deducing are needed.
3. The description and explanation about most of the results are limited, which would reduce the credibility in some extent. The relationship of results with engineering application was suggested to be included.
4. It is suggested that add some comparison with the actual situation or field tests.
5. Some wrong expression and uniform quality of figures. Such as: line 136, line 143, line 151. Serial number level wrong: line 451 454 464. Author’s name: Yonggqiang?
Minor editing of English language is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
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 “Study on Mechanical Calculation Model of Arch Ring in Free-standing Stone Cave-dwelling”(Research Article ID sustainability-2372870). 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. We sincerely hope that the corrections meet with approval, and the manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Now I will respond to these comments point by point. Please see the attachment.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Yours sincerely,
Yan’e Hao
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English should be improved moderately.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
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 “Study on Mechanical Calculation Model of Arch Ring in Free-standing Stone Cave-dwelling”(Research Article ID sustainability-2372870). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. According to your suggestion, we have made corrections on the original manuscript. We hope that the corrections meet with approval. Now I will respond to these comments point by point. Please see the attachment.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards!
Yours sincerely,
Yan’e Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper dealt with the arch action of structures, which the authors claim as the cave structure.
1. The definition of cave structure is unclear to the general readers. The overall concept is about the arching action of brick structures. Mostly, the contents are about the statics and structural analysis by setting different assumptions.
2. The analysis seems to be worthy of reporting, but the practical approach seems to be limited by using these tools. The findings seem to be theoretical and unclear for real design aspects. Please elaborate further.
3. Mainly, sectional analysis (2D) is discussed. How about the longitudinal direction? The approach for 3D is not well understood.
4. The critical part is to compare the analysis with the actual measured data. This part is missing, and the authors should compare these results with the measured data or experimental data. Otherwise, the suggested approaches are limitedly proven. So, the study is a kind of parametric study with some traditional mechanics-based calculations. The safety and uncertainties are not discussed to confirm that the approach can be applied to the real design problem.
Finally, only analytical results are presented, and the values are not confirmed with the measured data or sophisticated values obtained from the simulations. Therefore, the paper's originality is very limited as the current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3:
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewer very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Study on Mechanical Calculation Model of Arch Ring in Free-standing Stone Cave-dwelling”(Research Article ID sustainability-2372870). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
We have studied comments carefully. According to the reviewer’s detailed comments and suggestions, we have tried our best to make corrections on the original manuscript. We hope that the corrections can meet with approval. Please see the attachment.
Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards!
Yours sincerely,
Yan’e Hao
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
it can be accept in present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors responded to the comments properly and improved the quality of the paper.
