Feasibility Studies on the Utilization of Recycled Slag in Grouting Material for Tunneling Engineering

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

1. In the intorduction , more updated literartures are suggested to be added such as "Sun Z Y, Zhang D L, Fang Q, et al. Analytical solutions for deep tunnels in strain-softening rocks modeled by different elastic strain definitions with the unified strength theory. Sci China Tech Sci, 2022, 65."

2. Some information seems to be lost in Table 1.

3. The conclusions are suggested to be written by items. Moreover, please add more information about your novelty and that can be applied to the actual tunnelling engineering (such as rules, technology or method).

Author Response

Please refer to attached file for the point to point response.

Thanks a lot. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors have improved the manuscript compared to the previous version, so thanks for that.

The English needs to be significantly improved, I suggest getting a professional proof reader.

Figure 2 has several colours with the same description.

The discussion on the tables and figures should go before the tables and ifugres, not after (e.g. lines 160 to 166 and 200 to 208)

The discussion in lines 209 to 222 is meaningless, there is no description the statistical properties, the r2 value, etc etc. I suggest removing this and increasing the critical analysis of the result to give insight as to what they mean.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file for the point to point response.

Thanks a lot. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript has been modified well.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments and the valuable advices in the revision of this mansucript. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Only an editorial comment, equation 2 is not clear because the (2) has moved to the main text. I don't need to see the manuscript again.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments and the authors have corrected the editorial error in the revised the manuscript.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors conducted a series of experimental measurements to investigate the feasibility on the utilization of recycled slag in grouting material for tunneling engineering. The environment friendly construction material and technology has won more and more attentions from geotechnical engineers. The topic of this manuscript is of both academical and practical interests. However, the reviewer also has some minor comments for the authors’ consideration in the revision.

1, Figure 2: the words in figure are unclear, please improve. In addition, “China Construction Eighth Engineering Division Co. LTD” on the top left corner should be removed.

2, Table 3: Grammar error in caption, please correct. “Factors” in Table 3 should be S/N.

3, Table 4: Grammar error in caption, please correct. “Factors” in Table 4 should be S/N. Please add unit for each proportion in Table 4.

4, Table 5：Grammar error in caption, please correct.

5, Table 6.  “Factors” in Table 6 should be S/N. Please try to retain two decimals for the values in all the tables throughout the manuscript.

6, Figure 5: please use SI unit for the entire manuscript. (y axis, g/cm3 should be Mg/m3).

7, Equation (1) should be expressed in the form of matrix.

8, The conclusion should be concise and can be combined. The first sentence can be removed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

It is suggested to supplement the discussion related to the practice of tunnel structure reinforcement engineering. Furthermore, the preciseness of the logical order of the article needs to be improved. In order to reflect the key word of mechanical mechanism in title, the analysis of structural failure process and load deformation/strain curve should be in-depth. Generally speaking, this paper has refined language ecpression and detailed data parameters. It is suggested to modify the chart format and add key performance points to enhance the readability of charts.

There are few suggestions on the details of this paper：

(1) The engineering application effect of the grouting material should be added, such as the tunnel displacement and seepage. This is important.

(2) What is the weight/volume ratio of the different meterials in Table 1?

(3) The English needs to be refined by some native speakers. Moreover, in the introduction, literature review is not sufficient, and some references about tunnels are suggested to be added. Such as "Analysis of the interaction between tunnel support and surrounding rock considering pre-reinforcement", " Displacement process analysis of deep tunnels with grouted rockbolts considering bolt installation time and bolt length ", " Scientific problems and research proposals for Sichuan-Tibet railway tunnel construction".

(4) When using the grouting material, is there any special equipment needed?

(5) The experiment seems to have with little correlation with the engineering project. The sturcture and the logicality should be reconsidered.

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction

The authors have not done a satisfactory job at justifying the research need based on existing, published research. I recommend this section to be re written to guide the readers towards why the research of the authors is necessary. The literature review is very limited, this needs to be redone. This is a key weakness of the paper that needs to be solved before I can recommend its publication.

Experimental design

Lines 114 and 115. This statement is purely based on the similar PSD? This is incorrect, as there are many other factors, this statement is what the researchers are trying to prove, so it would go into conclusions if supported by other results. Other properties such as mineral composition and particle sphericity have been ignored, and even Cu and Cc are quite different for the two materials. I understand if this information cannot be collected at this stage, but the limitations need to be recognised, and the statement deleted.

Line 140. Substitute ; by .

Lines 143 to 148. Why those ratios? I understand they were used onsite, but why? It’s quite a wide range of parameters

The way the results are presented is very good, but there is no critical discussion – what are the results telling us? This is a key weakness of the paper that needs to be solved before I can recommend its publication.