Performance Deterioration of Underground Culverts Considering the Effect of Dissolution and Its Impact on the Surrounding Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting paper. I really enjoy it.

Please check the reference style and grammatical errors for example in title 2 time the word effect was used.

line 241 The tensile stress under working condition E in region VI shows a rapid 241 increase with a peak value up to 0.89 MPa, and in the rest of the working conditions, the tensile stress decreases year by year.....please please explain in more details.

line 117: CSH increased porosity is reported..... please confirmed it as CSH decreased the porosity by micro filling or increasing the cementitious. I suggest to do TGA or scan electronic microscopy for better evaluation.

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer #1

Very interesting paper. I really enjoy it.

Comment 1:

Please check the reference style and grammatical errors for example in title 2 time the word effect was used.

Response 1:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The authors have checked and corrected the format of all references. The revised manuscript has been re-edited by a native English speaker.

Comment 2:

line 241 The tensile stress under working condition E in region VI shows a rapid 241 increase with a peak value up to 0.89 MPa, and in the rest of the working conditions, the tensile stress decreases year by year.....please please explain in more details.

Response 2:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. It has been explained in detail in the paper. The explanations are given as follows.

In the II and VI regions, under E working condition, the culvert middle wall undergoes dissolution degradation, and the decrease of elastic modulus leads to the increase of vertical deformation of the middle wall. The middle of the roof plate produces larger vertical displacement under the action of soil pressure, self-weight and other loads, which leads to a significant increase of tensile stress in the II and VI regions, with a peak value of 0.89 MPa. In A and C working conditions, the culvert sidewalls undergo dissolution deterioration and the reduction of elastic modulus leads to the increase of sidewall deformation. The two ends of the top plate produce larger vertical displacement under the action of soil pressure, self-weight and other loads, which leads to the reduction of tensile stress in II and VI regions. In B condition, the bottom plate of the culvert is degraded by dissolution, and the decrease of elastic modulus leads to the increase of vertical displacement of the side wall, and the two ends of the top plate produce larger vertical displacement under the action of soil pressure, self-weight and other loads, which leads to the decrease of tensile stress in II and VI regions. In D working condition, the culvert top slab undergoes dissolution deterioration, and the reduction of elastic modulus makes the stress concentration released, and the tensile stresses in II and VI regions show a small decrease. Under the full dissolution condition, the culvert as a whole undergoes dissolution deterioration, and the resulting effect is equivalent to the use of low-strength concrete in terms of mechanical properties, which has a small change in stress distribution, as can be seen in Figure 12, where the maximum tensile stress in each region under the full dissolution condition has a small change.

Comment 3:

line 117: CSH increased porosity is reported..... please confirmed it as CSH decreased the porosity by micro filling or increasing the cementitious. I suggest to do TGA or scan electronic microscopy for better evaluation.

Response 3:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We acknowledge that the methods proposed by the experts for evaluation by TGA or scanning electron microscopy are very useful and effective. However, for the study in this paper, we do not currently sample the actual project year by year. In the next step, we will take the method proposed by the experts for further study.

Other changes

In addition to the editor and other reviewers’ comments and suggestions, several changes have been made to improve the understanding of the manuscript:

1. Modifications in several figures have been conducted to improve the quality of figures.
2. The format of the reference has been modified to the requirements of the Applied Sciences.
3. Place the figures and tables in a suitable place in the article.

Moreover, small changes throughout the manuscript have been made to improve the English language and grammar. These changes do not influence the main content and framework of this manuscript. All changes, including those suggested by the reviewers, can be easily seen in the revised manuscript (track changes version) and the revised parts were also clearly indicated in this response so that the editor and reviewers can easily review the changed parts.

We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comprehensive review and trust that the corrections will meet with the publishing approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the content of the paper sent for review, it is stated that the work submitted for review is in the form of a report on the numerical calculations performed. In the first part of the work, the Authors omitted the development of the general part, including the lack of an extensive part related to the analysis of the literature on the subject - the imperfection should be supplemented. The Authors also omitted to a satisfactory extent the description of experimental studies carried out by other researchers and related thematically to the scope of their numerical calculations. The paper should be supplemented with an analysis of the test results on a natural or model scale, if such studies have been previously carried out. There is no information in the paper about the change of the subsoil parameters in the event of a pipeline leak. Can this aspect be analyzed in the article? To sum up, the Reviewer supports the idea of publishing the paper. However, it requires some additions and explanations in order to improve its content

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer #2

After reading the content of the paper sent for review, it is stated that the work submitted for review is in the form of a report on the numerical calculations performed. The Reviewer supports the idea of publishing the paper. However, it requires some additions and explanations in order to improve its content.

Comment 1:

In the first part of the work, the Authors omitted the development of the general part, including the lack of an extensive part related to the analysis of the literature on the subject - the imperfection should be supplemented. The Authors also omitted to a satisfactory extent the description of experimental studies carried out by other researchers and related thematically to the scope of their numerical calculations.

Response 1:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. In the first part of the work, the authors add the development of the general part, including an extensive part related to the analysis of the literature on the subject. Experimental studies by other researchers are also described. The modified parts of the paper are marked in red.

Comment 2:

The paper should be supplemented with an analysis of the test results on a natural or model scale, if such studies have been previously carried out.

Response 2:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We recognize that the recommendations made by the experts are very useful and effective. This paper mainly proposes a dissolution damage model that can reflect the deterioration of macroscopic properties of concrete. A coupled chemical-mechanical-seepage numerical model for a double-box culvert is established in the context of an underground double-box culvert structure in a channel and culvert intersection project. However, similar studies have not been conducted previously due to experimental constraints. The analysis of the results at natural or model scales needs to be explored in a subsequent study.

Comment 3:

There is no information in the paper about the change of the subsoil parameters in the event of a pipeline leak. Can this aspect be analyzed in the article?

Response 3:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. We recognize that the recommendations made by the experts are very useful and effective. The main objective of the research in this paper is the dissolution deterioration of concrete. For the changes of bottom soil parameters during culvert leakage, it is difficult to get an effective supplement due to the limitation of experimental conditions and survey difficulties. In the next step of the study, we will consider this aspect to supplement the completeness of the research work.

Other changes

In addition to the editor and other reviewers’ comments and suggestions, several changes have been made to improve the understanding of the manuscript:

1. Modifications in several figures have been conducted to improve the quality of figures.
2. The format of the reference has been modified to the requirements of the Applied Sciences.
3. Place the figures and tables in a suitable place in the article.

Moreover, small changes throughout the manuscript have been made to improve the English language and grammar. These changes do not influence the main content and framework of this manuscript. All changes, including those suggested by the reviewers, can be easily seen in the revised manuscript (track changes version) and the revised parts were also clearly indicated in this response so that the editor and reviewers can easily review the changed parts.

We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comprehensive review and trust that the corrections will meet with the publishing approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this study, the performance of underground culverts is analyzed numerically. A model is verified by the similar experimental study available in the literature and the influence of surrounding soil affected by dissolution is then assessed.

The following comments should be addressed by the authors in order to enhance the manuscript quality:

1.      Abstract: "with time was constructed" -> "with time was developed"

2.     P4: The reference of the mentioned equations (e.g., Eq. 4-6) should be mentioned clearly.

3.      P4: what does "d" refer to? Day? it should be clarified.

4.      P5, section 3.1. First paragraph: the authors are recommended to add a figure illustrating the dimensions and details of the model.

5.      P5: "are shown in Table 4. ": it seems that Table 4 should be replaced with Table 1. Generally, the figures and Tables are not referred correctly in the manuscript. The authors should check the number of figures and Tables throughout the manuscript.

6.      Section 4.1: Some references (e.g., [36]) are not presented as the journal format. Please check and revise all the similar cases.

7.     Fig. 6 and 7: the captions are not positioned below the figures appropriately, and should be revised. Please check and revise other similar cases (e.g., Fig. 8-9).

8.      P12: "permeability coefficient of 8.354×10-8m/s": (-8) should be superscripted.

9.     The main concern of the reviewer is material properties of the culvert. The authors should clarify the following issues:

a.     the material used for simulating concrete (e.g., CDP)?

b.     The properties of the applied concrete model (e.g., dilation angle).

c.     The mesh size and sensitivity analysis of mesh size?

Following references might be helpful.

a.       Dabiri, H., Kaviani, A., & Kheyroddin, A. (2020). Influence of reinforcement on the performance of non-seismically detailed RC beam-column joints. Journal of Building Engineering, 31, 101333.

b.      Behnam, H., Kuang, J. S., & Samali, B. (2018). Parametric finite element analysis of RC wide beam-column connections. Computers & Structures, 205, 28-44.

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer #3

In this study, the performance of underground culverts is analyzed numerically. A model is verified by the similar experimental study available in the literature and the influence of surrounding soil affected by dissolution is then assessed.

The following comments should be addressed by the authors in order to enhance the manuscript quality:

Comment 1:

Abstract: "with time was constructed" -> "with time was developed"

Response 1:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The revised manuscript has replaced the word 'constructed' with 'developed'.

Comment 2:

P4: The reference of the mentioned equations (e.g., Eq. 4-6) should be mentioned clearly.

Response 2:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The reference of the mentioned equations (e.g., Eq. 4-6) was clear. The reference of the equation 4 is [30]. Equations 5 and 6 are derived from Equations 3 and 4.

Comment 3:

P4: what does "d" refer to? Day? it should be clarified.

Response 3:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The "d" refers to "day".All "d" in the paper have been replaced with "day".

Comment 4:

P5, section 3.1. First paragraph: the authors are recommended to add a figure illustrating the dimensions and details of the model.

Response 4:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The design dimensions of the culvert in Figure 2 have been added in Section 3.1 of the paper.

Figure 2. Culvert design size

Comment 5:

P5: "are shown in Table 4. ": it seems that Table 4 should be replaced with Table 1. Generally, the figures and Tables are not referred correctly in the manuscript. The authors should check the number of figures and Tables throughout the manuscript.

Response 5:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Table 4 has been changed to Table 1. The authors have checked the number of images and tables throughout the manuscript and have adjusted their citation forms.

Comment 6:

Section 4.1: Some references (e.g., [36]) are not presented as the journal format. Please check and revise all the similar cases.

Response 6:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The format of all references and citations has been checked and modified, including [36].

Comment 7:

Fig. 6 and 7: the captions are not positioned below the figures appropriately, and should be revised. Please check and revise other similar cases (e.g., Fig. 8-9).

Response 7:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The captions for Figures 6 and 7 have been placed directly below the images. and similar cases throughout the text were checked and revised.

Comment 8:

P12: "permeability coefficient of 8.354×10-8m/s": (-8) should be superscripted.

Response 8:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The authors have changed the (-8) to a superscript.

Comment 9:

The main concern of the reviewer is material properties of the culvert. The authors should clarify the following issues:

1. The material used for simulating concrete (e.g., CDP)?
2. The properties of the applied concrete model (e.g., dilation angle).
3. The mesh size and sensitivity analysis of mesh size?

Following references might be helpful.

101333. Dabiri, H., Kaviani, A., & Kheyroddin, A. (2020). Influence of reinforcement on the performance of non-seismically detailed RC beam-column joints. Journal of Building Engineering, 31, 101333.
101334. Behnam, H., Kuang, J. S., & Samali, B. (2018). Parametric finite element analysis of RC wide beam-column connections. Computers & Structures, 205, 28-44.

Response 9:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. The explanation is given as follow.

1. The material used to simulate concrete in this paper is the linear elastic material.
2. The properties of the applied concrete model mainly contain elastic modulus, density, poisson's ratio, permeability coefficient, etc. The parameters of the concrete damage area are input and calculated according to the evolution equations constructed in this paper.
3. The grid type is C3D8P cells, which produces 456050 grid nodes and 416468 grid cells. The sensitivity analysis of grid size is not the focus of this paper, but we have conducted sensitivity analysis for the grid size problem in private and found that the grid size has little effect on the results, so it is not discussed in this paper.

The above information is mentioned in the paper.

Other changes

In addition to the editor and other reviewers’ comments and suggestions, several changes have been made to improve the understanding of the manuscript:

1. Modifications in several figures have been conducted to improve the quality of figures.
2. The format of the reference has been modified to the requirements of the Applied Sciences.
3. Place the figures and tables in a suitable place in the article.

Moreover, small changes throughout the manuscript have been made to improve the English language and grammar. These changes do not influence the main content and framework of this manuscript. All changes, including those suggested by the reviewers, can be easily seen in the revised manuscript (track changes version) and the revised parts were also clearly indicated in this response so that the editor and reviewers can easily review the changed parts.

We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comprehensive review and trust that the corrections will meet with the publishing approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have done a large amount of research. The article is characterized by scientific novelty and practical significance. There are some minor technical errors in the article, which are recommended to be corrected in order to improve the quality of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Response to Comments from Reviewer #4

The authors have done a large amount of research. The article is characterized by scientific novelty and practical significance. There are some minor technical errors in the article, which are recommended to be corrected in order to improve the quality of the article.

Comment 1:

It is recommended to add information about the relevance of research to the Abstract section Since the article uses hydraulic structures (pipes) as an object of study, it is recommended to add these terms to the Keywords section.

Response 1:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Relevant terms such as culvert have been added to the keyword section.

Comment 2:

Links to literary references need to be moved from the superscript. For example, L 27. In the sentence "….Dissolution corrosion of concrete is also known as soft water erosion[1]….." correct to "…Dissolution corrosion of concrete is also known as soft water erosion [1]….". Please make similar changes throughout the text.

Response 2:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. Reference links throughout the manuscript have been removed from the superscript.

Comment 3:

L232. In the phrase "….in C condition, 1.19Mpa in D condition…" please replace "Mpa" with "MPa".

Response 3:

Thanks for the reviewer’s valuable suggestions. "Mpa" has been replaced with "MPa" in L232.

Other changes

In addition to the editor and other reviewers’ comments and suggestions, several changes have been made to improve the understanding of the manuscript:

1. Modifications in several figures have been conducted to improve the quality of figures.
2. The format of the reference has been modified to the requirements of the Applied Sciences.
3. Place the figures and tables in a suitable place in the article.

Moreover, small changes throughout the manuscript have been made to improve the English language and grammar. These changes do not influence the main content and framework of this manuscript. All changes, including those suggested by the reviewers, can be easily seen in the revised manuscript (track changes version) and the revised parts were also clearly indicated in this response so that the editor and reviewers can easily review the changed parts.

We appreciate the editor and reviewers’ comprehensive review and trust that the corrections will meet with the publishing approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed the reviewer's comments and the manuscript could be considered for publication.