Numerical Simulation of Mudstone Shield Tunnel Excavation with ABAQUS Seepage–Stress Coupling: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1.    English is not good and coherent.

2.    The abstract needs to be revised.

3.    There are some grammatical errors through the paper needs to be corrected.

4.    There are many figures and tables in the paper but the discussion and content of the paper is not enough.

5.    The methodology section is not completed and clears enough and will make many questions in the readers mind.

6.    What is the application of the paper results? It must be clarified in the sections Abstract and Conclusions.

7.    How did you do the verification of the model? It is strongly recommended.

8.    Modelling assumptions are required to be discussed precisely.

9.    The section Conclusion is not written well. It must show the main findings of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Soft rock is one of the unfavorable surrounding rocks in tunnel construction. A mudstone Tunnel of the Hanjiang to Weihe River Valley Water Diversion Project Phase Ⅱ in China, with a buried depth of 283.0 m and a water level of 221.0 m, has a certain representation. This manuscript comprehensively analyzed the responses both of the surrounding rock and of the lining during the tunnel excavation. And parametric studies were performed to further investigate the changes in the segment structure with increasing segment thickness. It is helpful for a better understanding of the coupling effect of stress and strain of low-permeability soft rock. The seepage boundary conditions on the open faces are discussed, which is important to accurately predict the external water pressure and the internal forces of linings. The manuscript is well organized in content and normative in typesetting.

The manuscript can be considered for publishing in the Sustainability after the following issues are addressed.

(1) The introduction is not well written. Recent literature on soft rocks tunnel should be described in the paper.

(2) It is suggested to further discuss the variation in the bending moment with increasing segment thickness (in Table 2).

(3) More information is recommended to be added to evaluate whether the segment's stress meets the strength requirements of concrete.

 

(4) There are also some small mistakes in grammar and spelling in this paper, please proofread carefully.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading the article “Numerical simulation of mudstone shield tunnel excavation under a high groundwater level and seepage-stress coupling: A case study” my comments and suggestions are listed below;

1.       Spelling check is required “excavation”.

2.       Linguistic mistakes are available throughout the manuscript. Spit the lengthy sentences for proper understanding.

3.       For abstract limitations, read the journal instructions for authors.

4.       The abstract must cover the background, problem statement, methodology, and results.

5.       Only include the prominent results of the study and avoid discussion.

6.       Model validation?

7.       Figure 1 is OK, however project location is missing. Geological profile is there, but material in water section?

8.       Literature related to the topic must be included to identify the problem statement properly. This will reflect the study novelty.

9.       Instead of description, tabulate the material properties.

10.    On what basis, these properties are selected, discuss in details.

11.    References are missing in some parts of the article, i.e. section 3.2.

12.    Tabulate the data relevant to machine.

13.    Tabulate the mechanical parameters of the machine.

14.    Figures numbering is not correct.

15.    While defining the symbols and abbreviation, use brackets.

16.    The study is based on some old references, include the latest one.

17.    The authors have performed the parametric study; however, this study must be based on the model validation results.

18.    The conclusion must be concise and must be based on the results of this study. Currently, the authors have included the suggestions for future modelling.

19.    After reading the entire manuscript, I suggest the authors to revised the title.  The seepage-stress part is not covered properly.

20.    How the authors selected the mechanical parameters for the TBM?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

.