Investigation of Earthquake-Induced Pipe Damage in Liquefiable Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs numerical methods to estimate the seismic response of pipes in liquefiable soils. While the topic is of significant importance, and your approach is methodologically sound, there are several areas where improvements are necessary to enhance the contribution of your work to the field. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions:

1. The introduction requires a more comprehensive review of both domestic and international research in the field. It is crucial to clearly define the innovative aspects of your study compared to existing methods. As it stands, the methodology employed—while robust—does not appear to introduce significant innovations. Clarifying how your approach differs from or improves upon widely used methods could strengthen the manuscript.

2. The figures included in the paper are of suboptimal quality, which could hinder understanding and the overall impact of your findings. I recommend enhancing the resolution and clarity of all graphical materials in the manuscript.

3. The simulation of saturated sand in your study raises questions regarding the coupling of fluid and solid phases. It is imperative to discuss how your model addresses this interaction, as it is crucial for accurately simulating the seismic behavior of pipes in liquefiable soils.

4. There is a noticeable discrepancy between the calculated and experimental excess pore pressure ratios shown in Fig. 5a. Please provide a detailed explanation for these differences.

5. The use of a two-dimensional model is a significant limitation of your study, as it may not accurately capture the complex dynamics behavior of pipe failure during earthquakes. Consider employing a three-dimensional model to provide a more realistic simulation of these processes.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The scientific and rational expression of language needs to be further improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendations

Please see attachment for answers

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID applsci-3000631, titled "Investigation of Earthquake Induced Pipe Damages in Liquefiable Soils," has been reviewed. The study investigates the response of buried pipes in the Iskenderun region during earthquakes in Turkey on February 6, 2023, utilizing numerical analyses and geological data from two areas. It evaluates the effects of various factors such as shallow and deep rock layers, pipe diameter, burial depths, and boundary conditions. The analysis reveals that shallow rock layers mitigate pipe displacement, while deeper bedrock and liquefiable soil increase the risk of pipe uplift. The depth to bedrock significantly affects pipe movement, with deeper bedrock requiring expanded boundary conditions to mitigate settlements. Increasing pipe diameter exacerbates uplift. The findings align with field observations, highlighting the importance of understanding soil and seismic conditions for engineering structures. In the opinion of the reviewer, the authors had conducted extensive research, and this study is both interesting and holds certain engineering significance, yielding valuable research results. However, before accepting this article, several recommended revisions should be conducted. These modifications are expected to require a certain amount of effort, especially the revisions to the figures. It is recommended to allow for additional time for these revisions. :

 

 

The recommended revisions are given as follows: 

 

(1) Line 48:  Variables in the cited formula should be italicized. Variables throughout the entire text should be checked and italicized.

 

(2) The verbs used to describe the research conducted by the authors should all be in the past tense.

 

(3) Figures 1 and 2 should be revised to make it clearer and more readable.

 

(4) In the Figures of this article, the font annotations should be standardized, and the figures should be clearer and more readable. All figures throughout the text should be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

 

(5) Definitions of variables throughout the text should be provided, preferably in a consolidated table.

 

(6) Line 259: 300mm should be changed as 300 mm, review the entire text and make corresponding adjustments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. Please see the attachment for revised report

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript describes a numerical investigation of the effects of earthquakes on buried pipelines. The effect of several pipeline parameters and conditions were considered. The study focued on the area of the Iskenderun region, Turkey, during the Kahramanmaraş earthquake occurred on February 6, 2023. The overall manuscript is quite well written and organized. English is sufficiently good. The utilized methodologies and procedures are described exhaustively and in detail. The introduction describes quite extensively the state-of-art of pipeline damages, but some aspects related to the risk of pipelines damage and related effects should be expanded. In the following some detailed comment:

Lines 30-33. Something more should be said about the relevant effects of pipelines damage, such as the interruption of potentially critical services and infrastructures, explosions, structural collapses,  environmental pollution effects, economic loss etc. Here the authors should cite some references, such as the following one:

-         Teng MC, Ke SS, Disaster impact assessment of the underground hazardous materials pipeline, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2021, 71: 104486, DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104486.

Line 33. This reviewer suggests to add the oil and gas pipelines to the list of important lines that may be dangerously damaged during earthquakes. Here the authors should cite some references, such as the following ones:

 

-         Borfecchia F, De Canio G, De Cecco L, Giocoli A, Grauso S, La Porta L, Martini S, Pollino M, Roselli I, Zini A, A GIS-based assessment of earthquake-induced landslide hazard in the area of oil-pipeline network of the Agri Valley (Basilicata, southern Italy). Natural Hazards 2016; 81(2): 759-777, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-2104-0

-         Bouziou D, O’Rourke TD, Response of the Christchurch water distribution system to the 22 February 2011 earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2017; 97: 14-24, DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.035.

 

Lines 95-103. Please, provide specific reasons you chose the two study areas. If it was for the soil liquefaction conditions, please, explain it more explicitly.

Line 159. What is hpo? Please, define it more explicitly.

Figure 4b. What is the shown earthquake record? It seems a synthetic artificial quake, not a natural earthquake. Please, provide a description of this earthquake record (including elastic response spectrum) and give reasons for using it in the numerical simulation.

Tables 1 and 2. Please, check that all symbols are defined.

Table 2. Please, replace “…Wethered…” with “…Weathered…” in third column header.

Figure 5. If parameter ru mentioned in the caption is the same as Ru defined in the text at line 225, please, use the same nomenclature.

Figure 7 is of very bad quality! Please, provide a better quality image with readable legend.

Figures 8-10. Please, check that photos are keeping their natural aspect ratio (Figure 10b is clearly distorted!)

Figures 13a, 13b and 13c. Please, provide indication of north direction on the maps.

Figures 14a and 14b. It would preferable to use the same scaling for depth axis in both images.

Figures 16c and 16d. Legends are too small and are not readable. Please, enlarge them.

Figures 19c. Legend is not readable. Please, improve image quality of the legend.

Line 597. Please, correct “…MSW-386…” with “…MASW-386…”.

Figures 21a and 21b. It would preferable to use the same scaling for depth axis in both images.

Line 611. Please, correct “…bedrock is lies…” with “…bedrock lies…”.

Figures 23b. Legend is not readable. Please, improve image quality of the legend.

Line 719. Please, correct “…diminishes.” with “…diminished.”

Line 736. Please, correct “…areas can measures...” with “…areas can support measures…”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is sufficiently good. Only minor language revision is required.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recommendations. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted.