Study of the Effect of Seepage–Cyclic Load Coupling Disturbance on the Physical Field in Old Urban Underground Spaces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper has carried out detailed simulation analysis. Study on the effect of seepage-cyclic load coupling disturbance on the physical field in old urban underground spaces, It has certain value and significance. The reviewer thinks that the logic of the article is clear and the structure of the article is reasonable. The deficiency lies in the description of the literature review part, and it is suggested that the author should improve this part.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1 Line 42-46 , reference 10 and 11. Consider adding some discussion explaining how or why these references relate to your study.
2 Line 77 refers to many researchers. Add a citation for some relevant literature.
3. Line 111, discussing water level data. Are these water table(unconfined) or confined aquifers? Please specify if known. Changes in a water table aquifer relate to draining and filling pore space, while confined aquifer water level changes involve fluid pressure changes.
4. Table 2. case 11 and 12. How were the material strength values of 70% and 40% selected for analysis?
5. Table 2 and table 4. Just to confirm, no entry in the river column means no river was included in modeling these cases?
6. Consider adding a brief statement that the modeled cases (number tunnels, river distance etc) are representative of field conditions you observed in Bejing.
7 Section 4.1. The findings and results appear reasonable. Consider putting the findings in the form of a list or table, then have discussion. This makes key findings easier to identify. Same comment for section 4.2. List or somehow highlight the main findings, then discuss.
8. Conclusion section. Consider adding a paragraph discussing the use or application of these results to engineering and construction in Bejing and similar conditions.
9. Overall findings and conclusions are reasonable and supported by presented data.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageConsider an English-speaking editor to review the manuscript. There are minor English grammar issues in the text that could be improved.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article concerns on the effect of seepage-cyclic load coupling disturbance on the physical field in old urban underground spaces.
The Introduction sufficiently describes the existing state of knowledge with reference to the References. The research methodology and analysis of research results have been described, but require supplementation.
Detailed Questions and Comments
1. Only qualitative information are presented in the Abstract and Conclusions. There are no quantitative conclusions (e.g. a 60% decrease in materials strength causes the displacement to increase 4.5 times).
2. Line 1: Please select the type of the paper (e.g. Article).
3. Table 1: Please add superscripts.
4. Table 1: Please replace "Mpa" with "MPa".
5. Equation 1: The symbols used in the equation should be the same as in the description (letter size and font).
6. Figure 8 and 9: Legends are not visible in the figures. Due to the same range of values, I propose to add 1 common legend that will enable readers to analyze the drawings.
7. Displacement results for cases 1 to 12 are given in "mm" and for cases 13 to 20 are given in "m". Please unify the units.
8. Figure 3 and 6: Please improve the visibility of the axis.
9. Table 3: Please standardize the descriptions in the table (e.g. the speed of vehicle symbol is placed before the bracket, and the remaining symbols are in brackets).
10. Figure 10: At what points were the values read? Are the given values maximum values?
11. Figures 11 to 18: For what points are the graphs presented?
12. Figure 12: In the case of sudden drawdown, the maximum displacement occurs for X4, and in the case of slow drawdown, it occurs for X1. What causes the different behavior?
13. Please add spaces between values and units (e.g. line 166 - "100kN").
14. Please check the text of the article for missing spaces (e.g. line 243, line 190).
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee my comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of English language should be improved.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered my questions and made corrections according to my suggestions.
I only have one editorial comment. The axle descriptions in Figures 3 and 6 are still not visible enough. I suggest adding axis descriptions ("x", "y" and "z") using the "insert text" function.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs the authors have addressed my comments accordingly, I have no further comments. However, a clear version of revised manuscript should be prepared.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
See comment above.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer to carefully review this manuscript and provide detailed comments for improving the quality of the manuscript. The manuscript has revised according to the comments marked as “RED” in the revised manuscript, and following are the specific responses to each of the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
