Controlling Seepage Flow Beneath Hydraulic Structures: Effects of Floor Openings and Sheet Pile Wall Cracks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDo all the changes highlighted in the attached paper.
Rewrite the paper abstract & conclusions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
- The title is too long, please replace by short and strong title.
Done as per the request of the respected author. The title was revised to "Controlling Seepage Flow Beneath Hydraulic Structures: Effects of Floor Openings and Sheet Pile Wall Cracks."
- Many cases of a single crack (opening) in upstream or downstream end sheet pile walls were tackled. ?
Done as per the request of the respected author
- Please rephrase the abstract as show the objective of research, experimental work and main results.
Done as per the request of the respected author
- Please rephrase the objective of research
Done as per the request of the respected author
- The conclusions were general not sufficiently comprehensive and not innovative please rewriting the conclusions by more details and new innovative data
Done as per the request of the respected author
- Bligh and Lane are too old references
The author agrees with the respected reviewer that they are too old since they are the pioneers of seepage calculation. The author only motioned them as a fact but did not use their basic theory assumption; instead, he used the finite element simulation. Also, the author added 21 recent research to the reference section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is based on the comparative results of Single and Double Openings for Seepage Control beneath Hydraulic Structures using different techniques. It was thoroughly checked by me and found that it is written in very unprofessional way. For instance, the abstract part looks like the introduction whereas the introduction part is written in very unusual way. The authors should clearly mention what the things are already done, what are the things missing till date and should add some brief idea about the future works that can be done. Also, the scope and objectives of the work should be very much focused. They should also highlight how the present manuscript can be benefited to the scientific community. The technical part is fine and may be fit for the journal. I recommend Major Revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language should be improved.
Author Response
- The manuscript is based on the comparative results of Single and Double Openings for Seepage Control beneath Hydraulic Structures using different techniques. It was thoroughly checked by me and found that it is written in very unprofessional way. For instance, the abstract part looks like the introduction whereas the introduction part is written in very unusual way.
The author revised the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusion to be more professional as per the request of the respected reviewer.
- The authors should clearly mention what the things are already done, what are the things missing till date and should add some brief idea about the future works that can be done. Also, the scope and objectives of the work should be very much focused. They should also highlight how the present manuscript can be benefited to the scientific community.
Done, as per the request of the respected reviewer. Future works are recommended in the conclusion section. Also, the precautions for the designer are stated in the same section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. In the “Abstract” section, it is necessary to briefly present the scientific problem being solved by the authors, the goals and objectives of the research, and also justify the scientific novelty of the work performed.
2. At the end of the “Introduction” section, it is also necessary to add detailed information about the goals and objectives of the study, the scientific novelty of the work performed, in comparison with the works of other authors presented in the literature review.
3. In the “Introduction” section, it is necessary to add a literature review of studies published after 2020. At the moment, the author has reviewed too few new works, which does not allow the reader to evaluate the contribution of the research to science and practice in the conditions of modern realities.
4. At the end of the "Introduction" section there are two "." symbols. Most likely this is a mistake.
5. Quality of Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, need to be improved.
6. Figures 1, 9, and 14 provide the reader with a sufficient amount of information, but it would be nice to add one or two visual drawings at the very beginning that would allow the reader to immediately understand the essence of the problem being solved.
7. Subsection headings must be formatted in accordance with the design rules of the "Buildings" journal.
8. In subsection 6.2 “Discussion of results” it is necessary to add a comparative analysis of the results obtained with the results of other researchers. Only then the reader will understand the contribution of the authors to science and scientific novelty, and the new knowledge that has been obtained or the existing ideas that have been developed.
9. In general, the article is interesting and scientifically developed, but it does not pay enough attention to the analytical component, which should be strengthened. The article is quite promising, but needs to be improved. After revision, the article must be sent for re-review.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- In the "Abstract" section, it is necessary to briefly present the scientific problem being solved by the authors, the goals and objectives of the research, and also justify the scientific novelty of the work performed.
Done as the request of the respected author
- At the end of the "Introduction" section, it is also necessary to add detailed information about the goals and objectives of the study, the scientific novelty of the work performed, in comparison with the works of other authors presented in the literature review.
Done as the request of the respected author
- In the "Introduction" section, it is necessary to add a literature review of studies published after 2020. At the moment, the author has reviewed too few new works, which does not allow the reader to evaluate the contribution of the research to science and practice in the conditions of modern realities.
The author implemented the recommendation of the respected reviewer and increased the recent references in the research.
- At the end of the "Introduction" section there are two "." symbols. Most likely this is a mistake.
Done as the request of the respected author
- Quality of Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, need to be improved.
The author improved the quality of Figures 1, 9, and 14 to the best possible quality.
- Figures 1, 9, and 14 provide the reader with a sufficient amount of information, but it would be nice to add one or two visual drawings at the very beginning that would allow the reader to immediately understand the essence of the problem being solved.
The author agrees with the respected author that it would be much better if the three figures could be accumulated into one. However, this can not be practically applied since there are three different cases, each having different parameters. It would not be obvious to the readers if they were gathered into one figure.
- Subsection headings must be formatted in accordance with the design rules of the "Buildings" journal.
Done as the request of the respected author
- In subsection 6.2 "Discussion of results" it is necessary to add a comparative analysis of the results obtained with the results of other researchers. Only then the reader will understand the contribution of the authors to science and scientific novelty, and the new knowledge that has been obtained or the existing ideas that have been developed.
The author agrees with the respected author that comparing the obtained results with other studies' results on the current paper's scientific quality is essential. However, to the author's knowledge, the section mentioned was tackled for the first time in the current study. Therefore, the comparative analysis for that section can not be applied to other studies' results. The author compared the results of no crack with those of a crack on the sheet pile walls regarding the uplift forces and the hydraulic exit gradients.
- In general, the article is interesting and scientifically developed, but it does not pay enough attention to the analytical component, which should be strengthened. The article is quite promising, but needs to be improved. After revision, the article must be sent for re-review
As per the respected reviewer's request, the author revised the abstract, the introduction, and the conclusion to be more strengthen.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript still needs some improvement. Define the problem firsta and then use the first para of the Introduction: Bligh [1] developed the first empirical method for..
Rest is fine.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of English to be improved.
Author Response
The manuscript still needs some improvement. Define the problem firsta and then use the first para of the Introduction: Bligh [1] developed the first empirical method for.
Done as per the request of the respected reviewer
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your attention to the comments provided. The corrections made allowed you to improve the quality of presentation of the results of your research. However, there are two points that have been misunderstood. These corrections need to be made.
1. Remark #6 said nothing about combining Figures 1, 9 and 14. You misunderstood the remark. Remark #6 talks about adding one more additional drawing. It was recommended to visually reflect the problem being solved by the author. An additional figure may make Figures 1, 9, and 14 easier for the reader to understand. This is especially important when the reader is not familiar with the topic being addressed in the study.
2. In your response to comment #8, you noted the uniqueness of the study and the impossibility of comparing its results with other authors. This is a normal situation. Each study has a certain level of scientific novelty. However, even in the case of an absolute lack of research on the topic under consideration, it is necessary to indicate this in the “Discussion” section, emphasizing the difference between the research you conducted and the closest research on the topic conducted by other authors.
3. Comment No. 5 talks about the need to improve the quality of Fig. 10. This needs to be done.
Overall, you have done a great job of improving your article. After additional corrections, the article may be published.
Author Response
- Remark #6 said nothing about combining Figures 1, 9 and 14. You misunderstood the remark. Remark #6 talks about adding one more additional drawing. It was recommended to visually reflect the problem being solved by the author. An additional figure may make Figures 1, 9, and 14 easier for the reader to understand. This is especially important when the reader is not familiar with the topic being addressed in the study.
A new figure has been added per the respected reviewer's request.
- In your response to comment #8, you noted the uniqueness of the study and the impossibility of comparing its results with other authors. This is a normal situation. Each study has a certain level of scientific novelty. However, even in the case of an absolute lack of research on the topic under consideration, it is necessary to indicate this in the "Discussion" section, emphasizing the difference between the research you conducted and the closest research on the topic conducted by other authors.
Figures 15-17 show already comparative results (as per the request of the respected reviewer) between the results of the standard floor design case (case of no crack) and the instances of cracks in different locations to clarify for the readers the consequence of the crack on the designed floor regarding the uplift forces for the case of a crack in upstream sheet pile wall.
Figure 18 has four curves, each representing a ratio (comparison) between the hydraulic exit gradient in the case of a crack and the standard case with no crack.
The author modified the conclusions (6.2) to emphasize that meaning.
- Comment No. 5 talks about the need to improve the quality of Fig. 10. This needs to be done.
Done, as per the request of the respected reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
