Novel Numerical Modeling of a Groundwater Level-Lowering Approach Implemented in the Construction of High-Rise/Complex Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Water 2024, 16: ”A novel numerical modeling of groundwater level-lowering approach implemented in the construction of high-rise/complex buildings”

Open Review

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

 

The paper deals with an interesting topic connected with dewatering design for the construction of buildings using groundwater numerical models. Facts and analysis of procedures confirm its great potential.

However, before publishing the manuscript definitely needs to be edited and rewritten taking into account the following points:

1.              It should be clearly defined in the direction of the article that this is the result of the authors' research or a review of methods or instructions for using modeling in this direction. This is not at all clear from the text.

2.             It is not clear from the text whether the authors are analyzing a previously created model or describing the results of their own research. A scientific article cannot be a project for standardization; it can only reflect relevant recommendations.

3.             The introduction and abstract should clearly state the objectives of the study.

4.             The introduction should be shortened by removing unnecessary general well-known information (for example, lines 49-61). A similar remark also applies to the methodology and materials section regarding the Modflow description and also lines 174-197, that repeat introduction.

5.             In some figures (e.g. 10, 11, 14) the dimensions along the coordinate axes are not indicated. It is desirable to present the figures in a unified form. Presentation of a detailed map of the actual material indicating the boundaries of the model, dewatering wells and the outline of the building foundation, as well as a map of the geo-filtration setting on the model indicating the boundary conditions when solving steady-state and transient-state flow problems is very appropriate and necessary.

6.             Considering that the purpose of creating a dewatering system ensures and maintains the groundwater level at the required depth, maps of the groundwater depth obtained from the model results should be provided.

7.             It is necessary to provide the balances of groundwater flow calculated on the model for critical periods of time, which will allow assessing the impact of dewatering system on the areas surrounding the building.

8.             The proposed (section 3.4) dewatering pumping system graphical sketch will be also useful.

 

Specific comments and suggestions

2. Materials and Methods

- Fig 1 is not necessary and may be deleted.

- The equation for the transition flow (Eq. 3) must include in the right-hand side ± ∆h, as a component of the flow rate going to increasing or decreasing the water-saturated volume. Otherwise, it reflects the steady-state flow conditions.

- In equation 3  pumping or recharging in time unit is denoted by the letter D, and in the description by the letter C.

3.1. Conceptual hydrogeological model

- Figures 5 and 6 do not carry much semantic load for the purposes of the article and can be removed or moved as an appendices or accompanying material.

- It would be advisable to supplement Figure 9(a) with model boundaries, coordinate axes with distances and relief mark values ​​on isolines.

3.3. Model calibration

- Why were October and November chosen for model calibration? However, August and September are considered when discussing the modeling results. This needs to be explained.

- The results of model calibration and verification are also assessed by the coincidence of model and experimental values ​​of geo-filtration parameters and elements of the groundwater flow balance. The dynamics of groundwater level fluctuations at the stage of a transient-state problem solving are also compared. These data need to be provided.

5. Results and Discussions

- In figures 13, 15, 16 and 17 it is necessary to apply the coordinate axes of the model and distances, as well as the pumping wells.

- It is necessary to expand the description and discussion of the obtained modeling results in terms of their comparison with traditional methods of dewatering systems design, as well as the possible impact of the proposed dewatering scheme on the environment and the stability of neighboring buildings and structures.

Conclusions.

The text in the conclusion should provide a brief precise conclusion with the main findings and other part may be discussed in the results and discussion section.

Reviewer’s Decision Comment: The manuscript may be beneficial for specialists once have rewritten and edited.     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: It should be clearly defined in the direction of the article that this is the result of the authors' research or a review of methods or instructions for using modeling in this direction. This is not at all clear from the text.

Response: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our work. To clarify, this is result of authors' research. We have revised the manuscript to explicitly state this focus and ensure that the direction of our research is clear throughout the text.

Comment 2: It is not clear from the text whether the authors are analyzing a previously created model or describing the results of their own research. A scientific article cannot be a project for standardization; it can only reflect relevant recommendations.

Response: We totally agree. We acknowledge that a scientific article should not be a standardization project. Our intention is not to establish regulations but to provide relevant recommendations based on our findings.

Comment 3: The introduction and abstract should clearly state the objectives of the study.

Response: Thanks for your observation. To address your comment, we have revised both the introduction and the abstract to explicitly state the objectives of the study.

Comment 4: The introduction should be shortened by removing unnecessary general well-known information (for example, lines 49-61). A similar remark also applies to the methodology and materials section regarding the Modflow description and also lines 174-197, that repeat introduction.

Thanks for pointing this out. We have shortened the introduction, methodology and materials section by removing unnecessary information.

Comment 5: In some figures (e.g. 10, 11, 14) the dimensions along the coordinate axes are not indicated. It is desirable to present the figures in a unified form. Presentation of a detailed map of the actual material indicating the boundaries of the model, dewatering wells and the outline of the building foundation, as well as a map of the geo-filtration setting on the model indicating the boundary conditions when solving steady-state and transient-state flow problems is very appropriate and necessary.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. Coordinate axes are shown in full windows ModelMuse interface, the structured grid shown its actually the part of the aquifer modeled with specifications from Methodology. We hope that Figures added and the modifications made adequately address the observation.

Comment 6: Considering that the purpose of creating a dewatering system ensures and maintains the groundwater level at the required depth, maps of the groundwater depth obtained from the model results should be provided.

Response: We appreciate your comment. To clarify, model results show the groundwater level and we have added some Figures expecting to adress your comment. 

Comment 7: It is necessary to provide the balances of groundwater flow calculated on the model for critical periods of time, which will allow assessing the impact of dewatering system on the areas surrounding the building.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. The main objective is to lower the groundwater level to below 34 masl without overexploiting high pumping rates.

Comment 8: The proposed (section 3.4) dewatering pumping system graphical sketch will be also useful.

Response: We would like to thank your valuable observation. Wellpoint system Figure was added. We hope it address your observation.

Specific comments and suggestions

2. Materials and Methods

- Fig 1 is not necessary and may be deleted.

- The equation for the transition flow (Eq. 3) must include in the right-hand side ± ∆h, as a component of the flow rate going to increasing or decreasing the water-saturated volume. Otherwise, it reflects the steady-state flow conditions.

- In equation 3  pumping or recharging in time unit is denoted by the letter D, and in the description by the letter C.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have deleted the figure as recommended, also we have updated the equation to enhance the clarity and accuracy of the manuscript. Thank you again for your helpful observations.

3.1. Conceptual hydrogeological model

- Figures 5 and 6 do not carry much semantic load for the purposes of the article and can be removed or moved as an appendices or accompanying material.

- It would be advisable to supplement Figure 9(a) with model boundaries, coordinate axes with distances and relief mark values ​​on isolines.

Response: Thanks for your constructive feedback. We agree. We have moved Figure 5 and 6 to appendix A. We have also changed figures to clarify boundaries from model.

3.3. Model calibration

- Why were October and November chosen for model calibration? However, August and September are considered when discussing the modeling results. This needs to be explained.

- The results of model calibration and verification are also assessed by the coincidence of model and experimental values ​​of geo-filtration parameters and elements of the groundwater flow balance. The dynamics of groundwater level fluctuations at the stage of a transient-state problem solving are also compared. These data need to be provided.

Response: We would like to thank your valuable feedback. We have added an explanation to the manuscript. Specifically, August and September were critical months with higher water table measurements, while in October and November, the dewatering technique was still required. Also, we have included information to the manuscript and we hope these clarifications meet your expectations.

5. Results and Discussions

- In figures 13, 15, 16 and 17 it is necessary to apply the coordinate axes of the model and distances, as well as the pumping wells.

- It is necessary to expand the description and discussion of the obtained modeling results in terms of their comparison with traditional methods of dewatering systems design, as well as the possible impact of the proposed dewatering scheme on the environment and the stability of neighboring buildings and structures.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have made modifications and hope that these changes meet your expectations.

Conclusions.

The text in the conclusion should provide a brief precise conclusion with the main findings and other part may be discussed in the results and discussion section.

Response: We totally agree and we appreciate your comment. We have revised the conclusion to address your observation.

 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Your comments have been essential in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "A novel numerical modeling of groundwater level-lowering approach implemented in the construction of high-rise/complex buildings" presents an interesting method for addressing groundwater challenges in construction projects under complex hydrogeological conditions. It applies the MODFLOW using the ModelMuse interface to analyze dewatering systems for the Torre Tres Ríos project in Mexico. However, I consider that significant improvements are required before it can be considered for publication.

1.      In the abstract, line 16. ModelMuse is an interface for MODFLOW, and it is not modflow. Therefore, correct the statement to say….This study applied MODFLOW using the user graphical interface ModelMuse.

2.       In the abstract, highlight the novel aspects of the study, such as methodological improvements or advancements in numerical modeling for dewatering.

3.      The abstract concludes without summarizing how the study’s results contribute to solving the stated problem. Add a more concise statement linking the results to broader construction or hydrogeological applications. For instance, "this study offers a replicable methodology to optimize dewatering systems, contributing to the development of sustainable construction practices in regions with complex hydrogeological conditions".

4.      In section 1. The introduction attempts to cover many aspects: historical evolution, technical methods, regulatory gaps, and specific challenges, without a clear structure. Please divide the section into subtopics (For example, background, state of the art, problem context, and study focus) to improve readability.

5.      In section 1, lines 30-40. Expand this paragraph to clearly articulate the research gap or limitations in Mexico and emphasize why it is important to address this issue.

6.      In section 1, lines 49-67. Condense this section to focus only on key historical advancements that directly inform the study (For example, Darcy’s Law and its application in numerical modeling, etc.).

7.      In section 1, lines 68-89. Relate the challenges to the specific problem the study aims to address.

8.      In section 1, lines 90-128. Conclude this paragraph by explicitly stating how this research contributes to existing knowledge

9.      In section 1, lines 129-172. The introduction to the case study could benefit from a smoother transition that connects it naturally to the preceding paragraphs.

10. In section 2, lines 227-243. Darcy's Law should relate the flow rate (𝑄)) directly to the hydraulic conductivity (𝑘), hydraulic gradient (𝑖), and cross-sectional area (𝐴). The term ∂v/∂t is not part of Darcy’s original formulation, remove this term. Also, clearly define all variables and their units immediately after the equation, for example, use k: hydraulic conductivity ( m/s) instead of permeability coefficient.

11. Line 251, equation (2) Continuity Equation. Outgoing Volume = Incoming Volume − Extracted Volume. This equation is so simplified and does not reflect the formal mathematical expression of the continuity equation for groundwater flow. Replace the simplified equation with the appropriate mathematical expressions for steady and transient flow, and briefly explain the significance of the terms.

12. Lines 265-270, transient flow equation (3). This equation lacks mathematical rigor and does not align with standard groundwater flow equations. Replace the oversimplified equation with the correct transient groundwater flow equation, and describe terms and their physical significance.

13. Lines 343 -355, equations 4 and 5. Improve the definition of variables and explain their role in assessing model performance. For instance, change hoi = hydraulic load observed in the field by hoi​: Observed hydraulic head (m).

14. Section 2 related to the methodology is dense and needs to be organized into sections: 2.1 Conceptual model development, 2.2 Numerical modeling approach, 2.3 Calibration and validation, 2.4 Dewatering system design.

15.  Section 2 also should address sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.

16. While section 2 focuses on the methodology in general and section 3 focuses on its application, there is an overlap in content. Both sections discuss the hydrogeological model, groundwater data collection, etc.

17. Section 3, lines 356-3.72. Add a clear statement on why this case study was selected and how it aligns with the study’s objectives.

18. Section 3.1. Conceptual hydrogeological model. Improve the description of the groundwater conceptual model by following the order as suggested: a general description of the groundwater system, conceptualization of the groundwater flow in the study area, aquifer type description, preliminary groundwater budge and components, and description of hydraulics parameters, and 3D visualization, figures and sections.

19. Section 3.2. The numerical model needs to be improved. Integrate the description and analysis following the structure: Discretization, initial conditions, boundary conditions, parameter setup, calibration and validation process under stationary and transient conditions, sensitivity, and uncertainty analysis.

20. In section 3.4. Emphasize how the findings can be applied to future construction projects and groundwater management.

21. Section 4: Results and Discussion must be reorganized: 4.1 Steady-State Model, 4.2 Transient-State Model, 4.3 Dewatering System Performance, 4.4 Discussion (Discussion of impacts on nearby structures, aquifer sustainability, and construction safety, comparison with traditional methods, and other studies, limitations, broader impacts, future research, etc.).

22. \It is suggested to move the model calibration from section 3 to section 4.

23. In section 4, the discussion is too narrowly focused on the case study, without considering broader applications or research implications. Discuss the model limitations. It is suggested to include a subsection of model limitations and future research.

24. In section 4. enhance the Interpretation of Figures and Tables and add explanations about the practical significance (Figures 13, 15, and Table 4)

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: In the abstract, line 16. ModelMuse is an interface for MODFLOW, and it is not modflow. Therefore, correct the statement to say….This study applied MODFLOW using the user graphical interface ModelMuse.

Response: Thank you. We totally agree. We have corrected it.

Comment 2: In the abstract, highlight the novel aspects of the study, such as methodological improvements or advancements in numerical modeling for dewatering.

Response: We would like to thank your constructive comment. We have revised the abstract and made some modifications. We hope the modifications address this observations.

Comment 3: The abstract concludes without summarizing how the study’s results contribute to solving the stated problem. Add a more concise statement linking the results to broader construction or hydrogeological applications. For instance, "this study offers a replicable methodology to optimize dewatering systems, contributing to the development of sustainable construction practices in regions with complex hydrogeological conditions".

Response: We would really like to thank your precise comment and suggestion. We expect the changes made to the abstract meet your expectations.

Comment 4: In section 1. The introduction attempts to cover many aspects: historical evolution, technical methods, regulatory gaps, and specific challenges, without a clear structure. Please divide the section into subtopics (For example, background, state of the art, problem context, and study focus) to improve readability.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have reorganized the introduction to improve readability and provide a clearer structure.

Comment 5: In section 1, lines 30-40. Expand this paragraph to clearly articulate the research gap or limitations in Mexico and emphasize why it is important to address this issue.

Response: Thank you for your constructive observation. We agree and have expanded that paragraph.

Comment 6: In section 1, lines 49-67. Condense this section to focus only on key historical advancements that directly inform the study (For example, Darcy’s Law and its application in numerical modeling, etc.).

Response: Totally agree. Thanks for your comment. We have made modifications in that section.

Comment 7: In section 1, lines 68-89. Relate the challenges to the specific problem the study aims to address.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have revised this section.

Comment 8: In section 1, lines 90-128. Conclude this paragraph by explicitly stating how this research contributes to existing knowledge

Response: We would like to thank your constructive feedback. We have revised this section and we expect the modifications meet your expectations.

Comment 9: In section 1, lines 129-172. The introduction to the case study could benefit from a smoother transition that connects it naturally to the preceding paragraphs.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out. We have improved the transition to enhance readability.

Comment 10: In section 2, lines 227-243. Darcy's Law should relate the flow rate (?)) directly to the hydraulic conductivity (?), hydraulic gradient (?), and cross-sectional area (?). The term ∂v/∂t is not part of Darcy’s original formulation, remove this term. Also, clearly define all variables and their units immediately after the equation, for example, use k: hydraulic conductivity ( m/s) instead of permeability coefficient.

Response: Absolutely right. We have made the modifications. 

Comment 11: Line 251, equation (2) Continuity Equation. Outgoing Volume = Incoming Volume − Extracted Volume. This equation is so simplified and does not reflect the formal mathematical expression of the continuity equation for groundwater flow. Replace the simplified equation with the appropriate mathematical expressions for steady and transient flow, and briefly explain the significance of the terms.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have replaced the simplified equation with the formal mathematical expressions for both steady and transient groundwater flow. Additionally, we have included an explanation to enhance clarity and accuracy of the equations.

Comment 12: Lines 265-270, transient flow equation (3). This equation lacks mathematical rigor and does not align with standard groundwater flow equations. Replace the oversimplified equation with the correct transient groundwater flow equation, and describe terms and their physical significance.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. We have replaced the equation and believe the revision effectively addresses your observation.

Comment 13: Lines 343 -355, equations 4 and 5. Improve the definition of variables and explain their role in assessing model performance. For instance, change hoi = hydraulic load observed in the field by hoi​: Observed hydraulic head (m).

Response: Totally agree. We have made the modification.

Comment 14: Section 2 related to the methodology is dense and needs to be organized into sections: 2.1 Conceptual model development, 2.2 Numerical modeling approach, 2.3 Calibration and validation, 2.4 Dewatering system design.

Response: We would like to thank your valuable comment. We have revised and reorganized this section.

Comment 15: Section 2 also should address sensitivity and uncertainty analysis.

Response: Thank your for pointing it out. We totally agree. Uncertainty analysis was included. 

Comment 16: While section 2 focuses on the methodology in general and section 3 focuses on its application, there is an overlap in content. Both sections discuss the hydrogeological model, groundwater data collection, etc.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised Sections 2 and 3 to eliminate content overlap

Comment 17: Section 3, lines 356-3.72. Add a clear statement on why this case study was selected and how it aligns with the study’s objectives.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a clear statement explaining the selection of this case study and its relevance to the study’s objectives.

Comment 18: Section 3.1. Conceptual hydrogeological model. Improve the description of the groundwater conceptual model by following the order as suggested: a general description of the groundwater system, conceptualization of the groundwater flow in the study area, aquifer type description, preliminary groundwater budge and components, and description of hydraulics parameters, and 3D visualization, figures and sections.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have reorganized the section 3.1

Comment 19: Section 3.2. The numerical model needs to be improved. Integrate the description and analysis following the structure: Discretization, initial conditions, boundary conditions, parameter setup, calibration and validation process under stationary and transient conditions, sensitivity, and uncertainty analysis.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have restructured the section 3.2

Comment 20: In section 3.4. Emphasize how the findings can be applied to future construction projects and groundwater management.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised section 3.4 to highlight how our findings can be useful to future construction projects and groundwater management.

Comment 21: Section 4: Results and Discussion must be reorganized: 4.1 Steady-State Model, 4.2 Transient-State Model, 4.3 Dewatering System Performance, 4.4 Discussion (Discussion of impacts on nearby structures, aquifer sustainability, and construction safety, comparison with traditional methods, and other studies, limitations, broader impacts, future research, etc.).

Response: We would like to thank your comment. We have reorganized the structure of section 4.

Comment 22: It is suggested to move the model calibration from section 3 to section 4.

Response: We totally agree. We have moved model calibration to section 4.

Comment 23: In section 4, the discussion is too narrowly focused on the case study, without considering broader applications or research implications. Discuss the model limitations. It is suggested to include a subsection of model limitations and future research.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded the discussion to address broader applications and research implications. We also discussed model limitations.

Comment 24: In section 4. enhance the Interpretation of Figures and Tables and add explanations about the practical significance (Figures 13, 15, and Table 4)

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have improved our interpretation by adding explanations.

 

Thank you for your time. We truly appreciate your constructive comments, which we believe will significantly contribute to improving the clarity and understanding of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The introduction mentions various numerical modeling efforts globally, but the discussion on their relevance to the presented study is limited. Strengthen the connection by briefly comparing your model's innovation or significance to previous models cited in the literature.

- Figure 8 needs clearer labeling, a more descriptive caption, and a legend.

- The grid model figures are less informative; provide additional details or reconsider their presentation.

- Line 488: "from 35 to 30" — specify the unit of measurement.

- LLines 489-494: Include references for these hydrogeological data.

- The methods section is highly generalized and does not sufficiently describe the specific case study model. Provide detailed steps tailored to the Torre Tres Ríos numerical model.

- The numerical model description is general and lacks specific implementation details. Provide additional clarity on the boundary conditions applied and the reasoning behind their selection, specific parameter values used (e.g., transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values), details on how the initial conditions were determined for both steady-state and transient-state simulations, methods for incorporating precipitation and river recharge data. Without these information, it is impossible to judge results.

- Ensure uniformity in terms like "drawdown," "piezometric level," and "transmissivity" and in unit of measure (meters, inch, lps)

- It is difficult to understand how the grid model matches with the study area, especially from figures

- It is less specific and detailed the section about model calibration.

- Include a robust discussion comparing your results with existing studies, highlighting the strengths and limitations of your approach, and suggesting potential improvements or future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many sentences are long and complicated, making it difficult for readers to follow the arguments. Shorten sentences and break down complex ideas into simpler, more direct phrases. (for example lines 239-243, 400-421, 432-434, 461-467 but many other)

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction mentions various numerical modeling efforts globally, but the discussion on their relevance to the presented study is limited. Strengthen the connection by briefly comparing your model's innovation or significance to previous models cited in the literature.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have strengthened the connection between our model and previous numerical modeling.

Comment 2: Figure 8 needs clearer labeling, a more descriptive caption, and a legend.

Response: Thanks for pointing it out. We have revised and updated this Figure. 

Comment 3: The grid model figures are less informative; provide additional details or reconsider their presentation.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We believe the grid model is crucial for understanding the section we are modeling for better undestanding in the following Figures.

Comment 4: Line 488: "from 35 to 30" — specify the unit of measurement.

Response: Agree. We have added the unit of measurement.

Comment 5: LLines 489-494: Include references for these hydrogeological data.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised this section.

Comment 6: The methods section is highly generalized and does not sufficiently describe the specific case study model. Provide detailed steps tailored to the Torre Tres Ríos numerical model.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the methods section to provide a more detailed description.

Comment 7: The numerical model description is general and lacks specific implementation details. Provide additional clarity on the boundary conditions applied and the reasoning behind their selection, specific parameter values used (e.g., transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values), details on how the initial conditions were determined for both steady-state and transient-state simulations, methods for incorporating precipitation and river recharge data. Without these information, it is impossible to judge results.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added more detailed information regarding your comment. 

Comment 8: Ensure uniformity in terms like "drawdown," "piezometric level," and "transmissivity" and in unit of measure (meters, inch, lps)

Response: Totally agree. We appreciate your comment.

Comment 9: It is difficult to understand how the grid model matches with the study area, especially from figures

Response: Thank your for your valuable feedback. We have added information to clarify this out.

Comment 10: It is less specific and detailed the section about model calibration.

Response: We would like to thank you. We have revised the section. We expect the modifications meet your expectations.

Comment 11: Include a robust discussion comparing your results with existing studies, highlighting the strengths and limitations of your approach, and suggesting potential improvements or future research directions.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. We have expanded the discussion to include a detailed comparison of our results with existing studies, emphasizing the strengths and limitations of our investigation.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Water 2024, 3429742.” A novel numerical modeling of groundwater level-lowering approach implemented in the construction of high-rise/complex buildings”

                                                           round 2

 

A revised and slightly improved version of the article has been submitted to the reviewer for consideration. Unfortunately, not all of the reviewer's comments were taken into account, which, in the reviewer's opinion, necessitates additional editing.

Comment 1.  Line 153-154. "The objective of this article is to analyze the model and 

response of an efficient dewatering system". On what it is response?

Maybe it is groundwater system response on developed, suggested or constructed dewatering system?

 

Comment 2. Line186-205. This is not a conceptual model. This is different sources of data for creating the model database.

 

Comment 3 (according comment 5 in previous review). Presentation of a detailed map of the actual material indicating the outer boundaries of the model, dewatering wells and the outline of the building foundation, as well as model boundary conditions when solving steady-state and transient-state flow problems is very appropriate and necessary.

 

Comment 4 (according comment 8 in previous review). The proposed (section 3.4) dewatering pumping system graphical technical sketch will be also useful that will add photo (figure 3b) with indicate different parts of it on the photo.

 

Comment 5. What do the colored lines (green and blue) mean? Legend needed.

 

Comment 6. In Figures 14-16 (model calculation results) pumping wells should be added.

 

Comment 7. Either a map or table should be provided showing the difference in groundwater levels calculated by the model for pumping waterflow rate at 120 l/sec and the selected optimal waterflow rates (table 3).

 

Comment 8. The authors have repeatedly noted (lines 144-145, 344-345, 649-651) that pumping water during drainage causes issues with excavation stability and adjacent structures experienced settlements in nearby constructions.  But the authors don't show any facts (for example radius of the conus depression) that may prove it.

 

Reviewer’s Decision Comment: The manuscript may be beneficial for specialists once have carefully rewritten and edited. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1.  Line 153-154. "The objective of this article is to analyze the model and response of an efficient dewatering system". On what it is response?

Maybe it is groundwater system response on developed, suggested or constructed dewatering system?

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree with your observation and have revised the statement for clarity.
Now the paper says: "the objective of this article is to analyze the numerical model and the response of the aquifer to an optimized dewatering system designed to improve groundwater flow control. The study evaluates how implementing a lower pumping rate system reduces drawdown impacts on surrounding structures."

Comment 2. Line186-205. This is not a conceptual model. This is different sources of data for creating the model database.

Response: Thank you for your comment, we have changed the section to "Development of conceptual model" and clarified that conceptual model was developed based on a collection and analysis of data from the study area.

Comment 3 (according comment 5 in previous review). Presentation of a detailed map of the actual material indicating the outer boundaries of the model, dewatering wells and the outline of the building foundation, as well as model boundary conditions when solving steady-state and transient-state flow problems is very appropriate and necessary.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comment. We agree with your suggestion and have added the requested figures. We believe that all the figures in Section 3 effectively assess the boundary conditions involved in the system. We hope these additions enhance the clarity of the model representation.

Comment 4 (according comment 8 in previous review). The proposed (section 3.4) dewatering pumping system graphical technical sketch will be also useful that will add photo (figure 3b) with indicate different parts of it on the photo.

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We agree with your suggestion, and a graphical sketch of the dewatering pumping system has been added as Figure 13.

Comment 5. What do the colored lines (green and blue) mean? Legend needed.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added a text (lines 612-616) to clarify this.

Paper reads: "The piezometric lines represented in the model use red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and light blue colors. For a general understanding of the following figures, these colors indicate different risk levels: red represents a potential problem, while green and beyond (the target zone below) indicate a safe area where the desired water level is achieved."

Comment 6. In Figures 14-16 (model calculation results) pumping wells should be added.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added additional information to section 3 and 4. 

Comment 7. Either a map or table should be provided showing the difference in groundwater levels calculated by the model for pumping waterflow rate at 120 l/sec and the selected optimal waterflow rates (table 3).

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We completely agree and have added more information on the dewatering system's performance in section 4.5, including a comparison between the deep well and well point systems.

Comment 8. The authors have repeatedly noted (lines 144-145, 344-345, 649-651) that pumping water during drainage causes issues with excavation stability and adjacent structures experienced settlements in nearby constructions.  But the authors don't show any facts (for example radius of the conus depression) that may prove it.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree with your suggestion and have added the relevant information in sections 2.5, 3.3, and 4.5. We hope these additions meet your expectations.

 

 

Thank you for your valuable time and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments. We hope that these adjustments meet your expectations and contribute to enhancing the overall quality of the work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please, move the calibration results to section 4.1. Also, It must include the steady state calibration and expand the analysis. The current analysis of the model calibration presented is very short.

2. The uncertainty analysis is very qualitative. Add, at least a sensitive analysis to determine which input parameters influence the model output. You could use USGS PES: Parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis for MODFLOW.

3. Expand the discussion, section 4.5. 

 

Author Response

Comment 1. Please, move the calibration results to section 4.1. Also, It must include the steady state calibration and expand the analysis. The current analysis of the model calibration presented is very short.

Response 1. Thank you for your valuable comment. We agree with your suggestion. We have moved the calibration results to section 4.1 and expanded the analysis. We hope these revisions meet your expectations.

Comment 2. The uncertainty analysis is very qualitative. Add, at least a sensitive analysis to determine which input parameters influence the model output. You could use USGS PES: Parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis for MODFLOW.

Response 2. Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that the uncertainty analysis could be improved. We also have added a sensitivity analysis to determine which parameters influence the model output. Additionally, we highlight the importance of selecting representative parameters, as their accuracy plays a crucial role in model calibration and ensures the reliability of the results. 

Comment 3. Expand the discussion, section 4.5. 

Response 3. Thank you for your comment. We agree that section 4.5 could benefit from further expansion. We have added a more detailed discussion on the performance of the dewatering system, including a comparative analysis between the deep well and well point systems. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of optimizing dewatering techniques to ensure safer, more efficient, and sustainable practices in construction. We hope this expanded discussion will provide a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of the dewatering system’s performance.

 

We would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable time and constructive feedback. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work, and we hope the revisions meet your expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all my comments in a convenient way. Although the flow of the manuscript can be improved, the paper has improved compared the previous submission phase.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors addressed all my comments in a convenient way. Although the flow of the manuscript can be improved, the paper has improved compared the previous submission phase.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your valuable time and constructive comments. Your comments have been helpful in improving the clarity and quality of the manuscript. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved in accordance with the reviewer's comments. Recommended for publication after final editing.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article has been improved in accordance with the reviewer's comments. Recommended for publication after final editing.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. Your comments have been incredibly helpful in improving the clarity and quality of the manuscript.