Study on Construction and Reinforcement Technology of Dolomite Sanding Tunnel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Only some comments:
1. Section 2 is in fact the introduction part of the paper. May combine Sections 1 and 2.
2. Table 1 has too many data. May consider to reduce them.
3. How to find the statistical results in Table 4?
4. Fig. 7 is difficult to understand. Please improve it.
5. Some references regarding tunnels in rocks should be added as: 10.1007/s10064-020-01798-8; 10.3390/su14084533; 10.3389/fbuil.2022.837745
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present paper is more a technical study than a research work.
The novelty of the work is to be stated; what is new in this study?, what is the scientific contribution in the discipline?
most the results are descriptive and qualitative, the performed calculations and measurement are to be described.
most of the presented results are presented without giving an idea about the measurement techniques (Table 3 and 4 for example).
The measurement techniques are to be described in detail, to give a scientific aspect of the work.
A measurement uncertainty study is to be performed.
The authors mentioned ‘’The pre-consolidation grouting of intense and fierce sanding dolomite was tested to determine according to the water yields …..’’ what are these tests?
A list of abbreviation is to be added (some non-declared abbreviations are used).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
REVIEW
on article
Study on Construction and Reinforcement Technology of Dolomite Sanding Tunnel
Meiqian Wang, Wei Xu, Hongyuan Mu, Jian Mi, Yonghong Wu and Yangxing Wang
SUMMARY
The article submitted for review is devoted to a topical issue. The construction and reinforcement technology of dolomite sanding tunnel was investigated. The study is quite current, based on a real-life site in Xiaopu in the Yuxi site of central Yunnan. The study was carried out on a fairly large scale, starting with the design conditions of the water diversion project, as well as the characteristics of the formation mechanism and the evolutionary model of dolomite sanding formation. The paper discusses the engineering problem of the dolomite sanding tunnel project, the water-rich part of Yunnan central water diversion, examines the engineering reinforcement plan of the central Yunnan drainage tunnel under the geological conditions of dolomite sanding, and obtains a number of important results.
As a result of the study, data were obtained that can be used in real construction and reinforcement of tunnels, so the article can be considered useful from the point of view of science and practical significance. At the same time, there are several shortcomings in the article that need to be corrected. They will be discussed below.
COMMENTS
1. The Abstract is rather vague. It should specify what scientific problem was solved and why the study was necessary. In addition, it is necessary to supplement the Abstract with specific quantitative expressions of the obtained scientific results. Now, it is not clear what the result is. The authors must bring the Abstract in accordance with the journal’s requirements. Editors strongly encourage authors to use the following style of structured abstracts, but without headings: (1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; (2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied; (3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and (4) Conclusions: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The Abstract should be an objective representation of the article.
2. In addition, keywords attract attention from the point of view that they are not presented completely. It is necessary to remove the specific names of objects and cities, and leave the technical characteristics of the study, otherwise it looks like the article can be useful only for some narrow region. I would like to understand whether this study will be useful for other dolomite tunnels and similar sites in other regions of the world.
3. The Introduction is very concise and should be supplemented. In particular, only 2 sources are analyzed in the Introduction. This is unacceptable for such a vast topic as dolomite tunnels. It was necessary to consider at least 15-20 sources. Only then it would be possible to speak about the scientific novelty and completeness of the review. It is necessary to increase the number of sources and supplement the literature review.
4. In addition, it is necessary to give clear formulations of scientific novelty, practical significance, goals, and objectives of the study. Therefore, it is very important to make the introduction section in such a way that will allow you to move from the introduction to the study.
5. It is necessary to supplement Section 2 "Research Status" with a description of the materials that were investigated, both theoretical and applied.
6. It is important to present the research agenda. Probably in the form of a block diagram, which is an algorithm of iterations carried out during the study, whether it is a literature review, setting goals and objectives, conducting a study, formulating conclusions.
7. Section 2 looks very ponderous; it should probably be supplemented with some analytical flowcharts or diagrams. In principle, the article is replete with text, so the study should be visualized somewhat. This will benefit the article and will be more interesting for readers.
8. Photos in section 3 in Figures 1a,b,c should be presented in a higher resolution, the quality of these pictures is currently low.
9. The flowchart in Figure 5 looks very ponderous. This is likely due to too much text on the blocks in the flowchart. Probably, a smaller amount of text should be presented on the blocks, and a part of the description of the flowchart elements should be put into text, ending with this text, that is, a description of the figure, subparagraph 3.4.2. Then, methodologically, a smooth transition between subparagraphs 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 will be ensured.
10. The title of section 4 "Methods and results" looks very atypical for such studies. I recommend the authors bring the structure of the article in accordance with the requirements of the Sustainability journal. Please, see the requirements for Research Manuscript Sections.
11. Photos in Figures 4, 5 and 6 should be submitted in a higher resolution.
12. In addition, Figure 6 has two components, which must be reflected in the Figure caption as 6a and 6b, so it is necessary to give a description of the left and right parts below this figure.
13. The color scheme in Figure 7 is not chosen very well, in particular, the green text is almost unreadable, it should be presented in a different color.
14. Notes on image quality also apply to Figures 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
15. In addition, attention is drawn to the completion of section 4 with consecutive figures from 8 to 13. Methodologically, this is incorrect, makes the section heavy and interferes with full perception. You should add a textual interpretation of the figures after them and make a smooth transition to the next section.
16. The article does not have a Discussion section, which is unacceptable. A detailed comparison of the obtained results with the results of other authors should be provided.
17. In addition, as mentioned above, it is not entirely clear what kind of result was obtained by the authors, it should be expressed more specifically and clearly in the form of the wording: “the scientific results of the study are, from a qualitative point of view, as follows ... and from a quantitative point of view, in next…”. Only after that it is necessary to compare with the results of other authors.
18. The findings should be complemented by a clearer research perspective, both scientific and practical. In addition, I would like to see more results in numerical terms.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the responses are unsatisfactory.
In addition, the authors have to present the performed corrections in their responses, or at least indicate the line numbers.
The authors haven’t responded to my last comment ‘’A list of abbreviation is to be added (some non-declared abbreviations are used).’’
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors corrected many remarks, but the main remark remains unchanged. The article describes an engineering problem, of which there are a large number and these engineering problems do not require new scientific research. I do not see scientific novelty and cannot assess the contribution of the authors to the relevant branch of scientific knowledge.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
After revision, the paper can be accepted for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend the article for publishing.
