Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr. Guojin Qin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was supported by the Science and Technology Project of PetroChina Southwest Oil and Gas Field Company (Grant No. 20220307-10), and the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Province (Grant No. 2022NSFSC0429).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study presents a numerical investigation into the stress and deformation behavior of buried polyethylene (PE) pipelines subjected to stacking loads. The study develops a coupled soil–pipeline interaction model, validated by laboratory-scale experiments, and explores the effects of various pipeline diameters, burial depths, and loading conditions on mechanical responses. The findings contribute valuable insights into the structural safety and design optimization of buried pipeline systems under surface loading. Overall, the manuscript is logically structured, the results are systematically analyzed. However, certain issues remain, including unclear justification for parameter selection, insufficient methodological detail in the experimental setup. These aspects require revision and clarification to further improve the scientific rigor and practical relevance of the paper.Redundant phrasing in the Abstract: "buried PE pipeline exposed to stacking load", This phrase is repeated multiple times in the abstract, which affects readability. Rephrase to avoid redundancy. In the introduction, It provides a broad review of existing work but does not explicitly clarify the innovation or research gap addressed by this study. Please Add a paragraph at the end of the Introduction stating the gap in previous literature and how your study contributes (e.g., "Few studies have systematically investigated the stress-deformation coupling in buried PE pipelines under varying stacking loads and burial depths. This paper develops...").In Section 2.2, the model validation section does not mention the number of repetitions, sensor resolution, or error margins.Please add the details such as the number of repeated tests, precision of the displacement sensor (e.g., ±0.1 mm), and discuss experimental variability to enhance credibility.The terms “pipe” and “pipeline” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript. It is recommended to standardize the terminology for clarity and consistency.In Equation (3), several symbols such as “τ” are not clearly defined in the text. Please ensure that all variables and parameters (e.g., τ, R, v) are explicitly introduced and described when each equation is presented, to improve clarity and mathematical rigor.In Equation (11), the variable “ri” should be formatted in italic with the “i” as a subscript. Please review and correct the formatting of all equations to ensure consistency with standard mathematical typesetting.In Section 3, although the content is rich and well-analyzed, the transitions between subsections are not sufficiently smooth. It is recommended to include brief concluding or transitional sentences at the end of each subsection to improve coherence and guide the reader more effectively through the progression of the analysis.In Table 3, the unit notation for stacking load appears to be incorrect or inconsistent. Please review and correct the unit if necessary. Additionally, it is recommended to check the entire manuscript to ensure that all physical units are accurately and consistently presented.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, the stress and deformation behavior of buried PE pipeline exposed to stacking load were studied. The research has some novelty. But there are still parts that need to be corrected before acceptance.

1) The title should use "deformation" instead of the misspelled "defo-mation".

2) The variables in the formulas should be explained and defined upon their first occurrence, with consistent formatting throughout.

3) The terms "pipe" and "pipeline" in the text should be revised and standardized to one consistent term.

4) Lines 189-190: The model test box dimensions are stated as height 1.4 m and width 1.5 m, but Figure 2 shows height 1.5 m and width 1.4 m.

5) The coordinate format in Figure 5 needs to be unified, and the units in Figure 8 require superscript formatting. A full review of the manuscript for consistency is recommended.

6) Line 214: The reference to "Fig. 2b" is invalid as no such figure exists in the manuscript. Please confirm whether this subfigure is missing or requires renumbering.

7) Lines 316-317: The conclusion about correlation should be explicitly supported by data analysis. Please clarify how the correlation was derived.

8) The 7000 Pa curve in Figure 9 is unclear and requires modification for better visibility.

9) The Conclusions section must be revised to align with the updated manuscript. Focus on highlighting the core contributions of the study and ensure the description is concise and focused.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Numerical study on the stress and deformation behavior of buried PE pipeline exposed to stacking load

PONE-D-25-17420R1

Dear Dr. Lu,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dr. Guojin Qin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********