Ground Surface Deformation Caused by Pipe Jacking Construction in a Soft Soil Area: An Experiment-Based Study
, Dezhou Zhou 1,2, Dong Huang 3, Ke Zeng 1,2, Yuhang Li 1,2 and Zhuo Chen 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents the results of research on a phenomenon that is interesting for people dealing with this type of problem. The studies were planned and carried out correctly. However, the results of these studies were presented in a disastrous way. The article is hard to read. In some places it is very difficult to understand what the authors mean. The article seems to be the first one the authors have written in their lives. I suggest that you consider publishing the article after extensive editing of the text, also in terms of language and corrections, including clarification of the following issues:
1. What is new in the results of the presented analyses; how did it enrich the knowledge in the field of wind loads on building structures?; what is the scientific overtone of the described numerical research?
2. Chapter 3 needs rewriting. The way of presenting test results is unacceptable. Line 221, 245, 265 - are these the beginnings of sentences?. Lines 269-271 - what this sentence is about. Where is the table reference 6. Why do all tables have the same headers?
3. Chapter 4: Lines 280-283 - the sentence is incomprehensible; Lines 294-303 duplicate information contained in tables and charts. Just enter the extreme values.
4. The description under the figure in a properly written article should look like this (except for grammatical correctness and syntax): The fitted curves of the Surface deformation with different C/D in different overlaying load for ground loss ratio: (i) Vs = 0.2, (ii ) Vs = 0.4, (iii) Vs = 0.4, (iv) Vs = 0.8
5. The order of references to figures or the order of figures in Chapter 4 is incorrect.
6. Lines 367-370: on what basis did the authors conclude that the test results presented in Figure 14 should be described with a linear model? The measure of the fit of the mathematical model to the test results was not provided.
7. Why are the confidence intervals in Figure 15 given with a probability of 60%. In the statistical description of technical tests, the probability of 90 or 95% is used.
8. Lines 394-395: What mathematical formulas do
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this study, the test soil was pressurized using a flexible loading bladder, and variable formation losses brought on by pipe jacking were mimicked by varying the loading bladder's water injection level. The surface deformation brought on by pipe jacking construction is related to the four parameters of stratum loss rate, overburden load, soil disturbance, soil tension fissures, and horizontal displacement. The research approach of the paper is clear, but there are still the following shortcomings:
1. There are unnecessary hyphens in the abstract on line 11, please modify them.
2. On line 65, when citing references 20 and 21, the author's list was incomplete and the citation format was inaccurate.
3. In line 100 of 2. Materials and Methods, please change the unit of soil weight to kg/m3.
4. Line 119 in 2.2, please use English format for model size “×”.
5. In Chapter 2.7.1, please keep the weight unit consistent throughout the text.
6. In Chapter 3, only the experimental results will be explained. Please add an analysis of the mechanism and reasons.
7. Please streamline the conclusion.
In this study, the test soil was pressurized using a flexible loading bladder, and variable formation losses brought on by pipe jacking were mimicked by varying the loading bladder's water injection level. The surface deformation brought on by pipe jacking construction is related to the four parameters of stratum loss rate, overburden load, soil disturbance, soil tension fissures, and horizontal displacement. The research approach of the paper is clear, but there are still the following shortcomings:
1. There are unnecessary hyphens in the abstract on line 11, please modify them.
2. On line 65, when citing references 20 and 21, the author's list was incomplete and the citation format was inaccurate.
3. In line 100 of 2. Materials and Methods, please change the unit of soil weight to kg/m3.
4. Line 119 in 2.2, please use English format for model size “×”.
5. In Chapter 2.7.1, please keep the weight unit consistent throughout the text.
6. In Chapter 3, only the experimental results will be explained. Please add an analysis of the mechanism and reasons.
7. Please streamline the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors took into account all comments. The article has been improved. I think now the article is ready for publication.
The article has been slightly improved in terms of language. It's more understandable now.
Reviewer 2 Report
It can be accept
