Fire Risk Assessment of Urban Utility Tunnels Based on Improved Cloud Model and Evidence Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The introduction contains many details, which are not relevant for the manuscript. Please shorten the introduction.
Relevant articles should be cited in the discussion of the manuscript to relate better to findings of others.
The article is overall well written. The wording could be more concise.
Please reconsider figure size vs. font size in the figures. Further, is there a way to combine figures 1 to 3?
The formatting should be improved. E.g. on page 7, one time the sub-sub section is numbered as (2) and the next as 3).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting from a mathematical point of view, I was surprised that the evaluation of the Five senior industry experts does not have any reference to who they are. I would like there to be a reference to be able to assess "who" the experts are. Starting from that lack of reference. The analysis and comparison of the data clouds should be verified with some type of iteration.
I would like some simulation based on some external pattern that could be a reference against which to compare the qualifications of the experts.
I recommend its publication with minor changes. Although I have not been able to go into the details, I think it can be read fluently in English.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The text would benefit from thorough language proofreading.
Formal comments:
- r. 28, 41, 58, 677, 71, 72, 117, 144, 173, 196, 214 – „s[“ (missing „ “)
- r. 40 – „helps“ (helped?)
- r. 56 – „(1)“, „(2)“ (start on a new line)
- r. 82 - „utility tunnel“ (Utility Tunnel)
- Tables – „Level Indicators“ (level indicators) – unify the first rows in Tables
- r. 88 - optimize the column width of Table 1 to fit on one page
- r. 105 – unclear sentence „The expectation...“
- r. 108 – unusual formulation „a method is divided into 2 types“
- r. 114 – unclear sentence „The...“ (in the above 2 methods?)
- r. 114-119 – check line spacing
- r. 123 – „respectively“ (missing comma, several times)
- r. 127 – „,...q“ (missing comma)
- r. 134 – nonlinear (non-linear?)
- r. 136 – „s.t.“ (not introduced abbreviation)
- r. 142 – „; He“ (He does not appear in (5))
- r. 153 – „. Where“ (unusual)
- r. 162 – „,sigma“ (missing „ “)
- r. 175 – missing comma (3 times)
- r. 199 – missing comma (2 times), „u--“ (not introduced)
- r. 200 – missing formula for l calculation (?)
- r. 203-204 – disable transition „.“ on a new line (several times)
- r. 209 – unusual expression (2 „i“s)
- r. 211 – „(.)“ can be replaced by „where“ (several times)
- r. 226 – „,k“ (missing „ “, extra „.“)
- r. 227 – extra „.“
- r. 229 – check indices, missing „ “
- r. 240 – „WK“
r. 249 - missing comma
- r. 257 – values 7, 4 differ a lot (why?)
- r. 271 – „50...degree“ (cancel bold font)
- r. 278 – what is "more scientific"? (entropy value?)
- avoid the term „more scientific“ if possible, or specify what you mean by it
- r. 282 – could be „Figures 1-3“ (?)
- too small letters in Figs. 1-3
- r. 303 – „as follows“ (word order)
- r. 330 – „it can be known“ (unusual), (1) and (2) – see above
- references [1], [22] and [24], [26] are the same (?)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for carefully reviewing our manuscript's English grammar and format. We apologize for the poor language and carelessness. We worked on the manuscript for a long time and the repeated addition and removal of sentences and sections obviously led to some mistakes. Based on your comments, we have now worked on both language and format proofreading. We hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments.
