Ground Deformation Associated with Deep Excavations in Beijing, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presented a performance study to comprehend the deformation associated with deep excavation by collocating and analyzing 88 engineering cases in Beijing. The authors reveal the correlation of some important engineering indexes, such as the position and magnitude of final ground deformation, especially its maximum, excavation depth, length-width ratio, embedded depth ratio, and stiffness of the support system, which is reasonable to understand the relationship between deformation and excavation. Some issues should be addressed before the publication of the paper, which are the follows:
(1) In "Introduction" part, the influence of the diverse factor on the pit performance during the deep excavation studied in the previous references can be illustrated specifically to explain and enrich the research background, especially, about the factors involved in this study.
(2) In addition to the basic soil parameters in Table 1, other important soil characteristics are supposed to be considered, such as the breakage of sand or the microsturcture of clay, as well as the properties of sand-gravel mixtures, the following references can be supplemented for the detailed explanation.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3597
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105735
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0002039
(3) Please give some description of "Located adjacent to old structures with high importance" in Table 3, and give a more specific meaning of the importance in the context.
(4) In Fig.9, the R2 of the fitting line is 0.586, which may not explain the strong correlation between the maximum ground deformation and the length-with ratio. Please provide more detailed explanations and descriptions.
(5) In most analysis parts, the fitting is employed to prove the correlation between factors, and various statistical tools and methods can be introduced to improve the persuasiveness of results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article presents very valuable results of measurements of terrain displacements caused by deep excavations from as many as 88 objects located in the Beijing area, in heterogeneous soils. The study evaluates the relations between maximum displacements (mostly settlements), and excavation depth (H), embedded depth ratio, length width ratio and support stiffness. The findings are interesting and in line with world experience.
In my opinion, the article is valuable and may be published, however, please consider some minor corrections.
Detailed comments:
1. The text must be carefuly checked for linguistic correctness (there are a lot of stylistic errors). Many sentences lack a predicate or a subject - due to mental abbreviations - which should not be the case in scientific articles.
2. Table 3 - the summary is very general and I suppose based on local experiences. In some locations worldwide DW are more popular then CPW, so more available and by that also cheaper... DW walls are the most rigid structure among discussed ones so they can be used in near proximity of existing old structures. I'm not sure if table 3 adds value to the article.
3. Line 198: "The proportion of points larger than -30 mm was 18.3%" should be "The proportion of points with settlements larger than -30 mm was 18.3%" It is an example of "mental abbreviation" - there are a lot of similar missing words in the text.
4. Lines 222-230: It would be worth presenting typical construction stages adopted in analysed cases. The statement that obsarvations are different then usual in terms of maximum displacement occurance may be due to not supporting the wall by the foundation plate before demolition of lower struts, or due to other construction staging purposes.
5. Equation 1 - why is there unit weight of water in this equation?
6. Figure 6b - should be larger in order to make it more readable
7. References - the cited references are correct, but there is no reference to more recent studies. Only one cited article is from the last 5 years (2018). All the others are much older. construction technologies are being improved, design methods are becoming more precise, so newer research may indicate slightly different results than the historical ones used for comparisons. I suggest looking for some more recent references.
Best regards
The text must be carefuly checked for linguistic correctness (there are a lot of stylistic errors). Many sentences lack a predicate or a subject - due to mental abbreviations - which should not be the case in scientific articles.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have successfully addressed my comments. I have no more questions.
