An Analytical Method Evaluating the Evolution of Group Effect for Vertically Loaded Pile Groups Subjected to Tunnel Excavation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors studied the variations in the group effect, load redistributions and pile settlements. The paper is the relevance to the scope of journal. Doubtful or controversial arguments were not detected in the paper. The paper has original content and worthy for publication in the journal. I can recommend it for a possible publication.

However, following comments must be considered carefully before this recommendation.

1. The title of the manuscript is like a technical report. The purpose, novelty and investigate method are not reflected.

2. Please explain the Poulos method in detail.

3. Fig. and Figure are misused in the manuscript.

4. The conclusions are rather a summary.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1#:

The authors studied the variations in the group effect, load redistributions and pile settlements. The paper is the relevance to the scope of journal. Doubtful or controversial arguments were not detected in the paper. The paper has original content and worthy for publication in the journal. I can recommend it for a possible publication.

However, following comments must be considered carefully before this recommendation.

Response:

Thank you very much for your kind advice on the manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised based on your valuable comments and suggestions. Relevant line numbering in the following response is based on the manuscript in the “track changes” mode.

1. The title of the manuscript is like a technical report. The purpose, novelty and investigate method are not reflected.

Response:

Given that the manuscript is basically a proposed method which is refined based on available design procedures, the title has been revised as “An analytical method evaluating the evolution of group effect for vertically loaded pile groups subjected to tunnel excavation” in the “tracked change” mode.

2. Please explain the Poulos method in detail.

Response:

The modified Poulos method, used for prediction of active pile group response, is a combination of the useful features of two available methods for pile response analysis: 1) the nonlinear foundation beam/column model (subgrade reaction method); and 2) the Poulos elastic analysis. The main refinement of this manuscript is taking into account the effect of tunneling-induced soil displacements when forming the pile-soil interaction function in prediction of the additional elastic pile head settlement. Therefore, the proposed method is equivalent to the modified Poulos method with the free-field soil displacements not considered.

Explanation about the three available methods (the modified Poulos method, the nonlinear foundation column method, and the Poulos elastic analysis) has been added in the revised manuscript, see Line 93-96, 110-116.

3. Fig. and Figure are misused in the manuscript.

Response:

Only “Figure” is used in the revised manuscript for consistency based on the kind advice of the reviewer.

4. The conclusions are rather a summary.

Response:

The Conclusions have been revised based on the advice, where the main refinement of the proposed method is emphasized and limitation of the study is mentioned as well, see Line 491-503, 513-516.

Thank you again for your review and valuable comments.

Yifei Fan, Jing Cai, Jianhua Wang

2022.12.27

Reviewer 2 Report

Basically your article is correct. But you have deficiencies in the use of the English language used to achieve it. Visible thing especially in the order of the used words in each phrase.  Moreover, you also have some mistakes of scientific expression:

• in line 12, instead of "behaviour" use "behavior"

• according to the MDPI template, the number of the equation must be entered next to the equation, not below. These changes will be necessary in the lines: 96, 106, 107, 114, 129, 130, 131, 150, 151, 152, 164, 175, 187, 195, 199, 206,, 225, 226,290, 295, 296, 304 , 308, 309.

• in line 185-186, the words "for the group pile k" should be written in "Palatino Linotype" font 10

• I believe that "No" in the flow chart of figure 3 should be positioned on the right branch of the decision block with "Eq (3) is satisfied" (i.e. the red version of the word "No" in figure 3 attached and modified)

 • in line 255 instead of the word "flowchart" I would use the words "flow chart"

• in line 312, instead of "behaviour" use "behavior"

• in Figure 8 I would position line 374 after line 375

• in Figure 11 I would position line 411 after line 412

• in Figure 14 I would position line 438 after line 439

• References must be presented in the form required by the MDPI templates, i.e. at least each article used must be numbered.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2#:

Basically your article is correct. But you have deficiencies in the use of the English language used to achieve it. Visible thing especially in the order of the used words in each phrase. Moreover, you also have some mistakes of scientific expression:

Response:

Thank you very much for your kind advice on the manuscript. The manuscript has been carefully revised based on your valuable comments and suggestions. Relevant line numbering in the following response is based on the manuscript in the “track changes” mode.

1. in line 12, instead of "behaviour" use "behavior".

Response:

Based on the suggestion provided, the spelling has all been revised as American English, including “behavior”, “unfavorable” and “tunneling”, etc., and marked by the “track changes” mode.

2. according to the MDPI template, the number of the equation must be entered next to the equation, not below. These changes will be necessary in the lines: 96, 106, 107, 114, 129, 130, 131, 150, 151, 152, 164, 175, 187, 195, 199, 206, 225, 226,290, 295, 296, 304 , 308, 309.

Response:

25 equation numbers have been placed next to the equation in the revised manuscript, see Line 104, 120-121, 129, 144-146, 165-167, 179, 191, 202, 210, 214, 221, 240-241, 299, 306, 311-312, 321, 325-326.

3.in line 185-186, the words "for the group pile k" should be written in "Palatino Linotype" font 10.

Response:

The font size has been corrected as 10 based on the advice, see Line 201.

4. I believe that "No" in the flow chart of figure 3 should be positioned on the right branch of the decision block with "Eq (3) is satisfied" (i.e. the red version of the word "No" in figure 3 attached and modified)

Response:

Thank you for your valuable advice, “No” was misplaced and has been positioned on the right branch of the decision block, see Figure 3.

5.in line 255 instead of the word "flowchart" I would use the words "flow chart"

Response:

The word has been corrected as a phrase based on the advice, see Line 270.

6. in line 312, instead of "behaviour" use "behavior"

Response:

Based on the suggestion provided, the spelling has all been revised as American English, including “behavior”, “unfavorable” and “tunneling”, etc., and marked by the “track changes” mode.

7. in Figure 8 I would position line 374 after line 375
8. in Figure 11 I would position line 411 after line 412
9. in Figure 14 I would position line 438 after line 439

Response:

Based on the suggestions 7-9, the figure titles have been revised based on the MDPI templates, see Figures 7-9 in the revised version. Besides, Figure 5 has also been revised to keep in consistency.

10. References must be presented in the form required by the MDPI templates, i.e. at least each article used must be numbered.

Response:

Based on the advice, references have been presented based on the MDPI templates and numbered.

Thank you again for your review and valuable comments.

Yifei Fan, Jing Cai, Jianhua Wang

2022.12.27