Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explains the objective in its final paragraph by stating that the study investigates the seismic behavior of a deep-braced excavation in sand while considering its interaction with a nearby building. It also explains that the effects of the building foundation level and different earthquake records are examined through changes in wall displacement, ground settlement, wall forces, strut forces, and building displacement.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The methods are generally appropriate, but inconsistent damping values, limited dynamic validation, and unscaled earthquake records reduce confidence in some results.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

Most conclusions reflect the trends and numerical results presented in the figures and tables. However, some averaged values appear inconsistent with the reported results, and a few explanations, such as possible resonance, are suggested without enough supporting analysis. For example, Conclusion 2 states that the dynamic bending moment increased by an average of 3.32 times, but Figure 15 reports ratios of 4.29, 2.74, and 3.34, whose average is approximately 3.46. Similarly, the reported shear-force ratios average about 2.91, not 2.85. The averaging method should therefore be checked or explained.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat inappropriate or unclear

The figures generally show the main trends, but several presentation issues make them harder to interpret. For example, many figure references appear as “Error! Reference source not found,” some figure numbers are repeated or inconsistent, and several plots have small labels, crowded legends, or unclear captions. The results can still be understood, but the visual presentation needs careful revision.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The authors explain the main trends and compare the effects of foundation depth and different earthquake records. However, some interpretations, such as possible resonance, are not fully supported, and the paper does not clearly discuss limitations or future research steps.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Moderately likely

The study adds useful numerical evidence on seismic interaction between a deep excavation, its bracing system, and a nearby building, especially regarding foundation depth and earthquake-record effects. However, the contribution is limited by the narrow parametric range, lack of dynamic validation, and several modeling and reporting uncertainties.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The paper contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, spelling mistakes, and inconsistent terminology that sometimes make the meaning unclear.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

No, it needs a major revision

The study has potential, but the inconsistent damping values, limited dynamic validation, unclear methodological details, broken figure references, numerical inconsistencies, and frequent language problems should be addressed before it is suitable for publication or a broader audience.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.