Water Inflow Amount Prediction for Karst Tunnel with Steady Seepage Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper establishes a distribution model of the seepage field around karst water rich tunnels and analyzes the evolution law of the seepage field. The water balance method and underground runoff modulus method were used to predict the water consumption of the tunnel. The corresponding water inflow in the corresponding area was successfully predicted, and the SVR model was successfully used to predict the large karst area before excavation. The submission is worthy of publication; however, some problems need to be revised.
(1) In Figure 1 and 2, the graphics are not clear enough, please adjust them appropriately.
(2) In Figure 3, the font is too small to be easily recognizable. The author should set it to the appropriate size.
(3) In Table 6, the author proposes to classify the risk level of water inrush based on relevant standards. Suggest the author to provide a detailed explanation of the relevant standards.
(4) In Figure 7, the author proposes a water inrush risk indicator system, but the introduction is too limited.
(5) In Figure 9, some of the text is obscured, and it is recommended that the author modify it.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response.
Reviewer 's Comments:
(1) In Figure 1 and 2, the graphics are not clear enough, please adjust them appropriately.
(2) In Figure 3, the font is too small to be easily recognizable. The author should set it to the appropriate size.
(5) In Figure 9, some of the text is obscured, and it is recommended that the author modify it.
Authors' Response:
Thank you for the friendly reminder from the reviewer. The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. All the minor points have been addressed in the revised paper.
(3) In Table 6, the author proposes to classify the risk level of water inrush based on relevant standards. Suggest the author to provide a detailed explanation of the relevant standards.
Authors' Response:
Two specifications are cited in the article. Referring to the code for hydrological survey and design of Railway Engineering (TB 10017-2021) [31] and the classification of water inflow in document [32], the division of risk levels based on the numerical value of water inrush volume is shown in Table 6.
(4) In Figure 7, the author proposes a water inrush risk indicator system, but the introduction is too limited.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. The following content has been added to the article.
“The occurrence of water inrush accidents is closely related to topography and geomorphology, hydrogeological conditions, human factors, and construction management. The geological conditions and lithology of the surrounding rock formations provide favorable conditions for underground water flow, while the contact zone between karstic and non-karstic rocks can facilitate the rapid development of karst. The abundance of groundwater and precipitation in the nearby area are also necessary conditions for the occurrence of water inrush accidents. The correct selection of construction methods and support measures can also affect the likelihood of water inrush accidents. Moreover, construction management practices are also a significant factor that influences the risk of water inrush accidents.”
Reviewer 2 Report
To improve the manuscript, consider adding more specific details about the evolution of the seepage field, the magnitude of prediction accuracies, and the practical implications of the study's findings. Highlight the novelty or contributions of the research to the field of tunnel engineering, such as addressing a specific problem or introducing an innovative methodology. Additionally, ensure that the text flows logically and coherently, organizing the information in a clear and concise manner. Add future work and recommendations for this work.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response.
Reviewer's Comments:
(1) To improve the manuscript, consider adding more specific details about the evolution of the seepage field, the magnitude of prediction accuracies, and the practical implications of the study's findings.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. Some references are added in the paper to explain the research of the seepage field, the magnitude of prediction accuracies in line 48-62.
(2) Highlight the novelty or contributions of the research to the field of tunnel engineering, such as addressing a specific problem or introducing an innovative methodology. Add future work and recommendations for this work.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. In the future, it will be possible to utilize the distribution status of groundwater and the SVR method to successfully predict the large karstic area in front of the tunnel face.
(3) Additionally, ensure that the text flows logically and coherently, organizing the information in a clear and concise manner.
Authors' Response:
Thank you for the friendly reminder from the reviewer. The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. The English has been polished to improve the readability of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors should check typos and minor syntax errors, grammar editing.
Better presentation between figures, results and text is needed.
Similarity found should be reduced.
Authors should check typos and minor syntax errors, and grammar eerors should be properly edited.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response.
Reviewer's Comments:
Authors should check typos and minor syntax errors, grammar editing. Better presentation between figures, results and text is needed. Similarity found should be reduced.
Thank you for the friendly reminder from the reviewer. The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. All the minor points have been addressed in the revised paper. The English has been polished to improve the readability of the paper.
The new paper is attached.
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper carried out prediction of karst water-rich tunnel. The water balance method and underground runoff modulus method were used to predict tunnel water inflow. The prediction method for tunnel water inflow in water-rich karst areas is combined with long-term on-site tunnel hydrology observations. The prediction of the large karst area ahead of the heading is also performed by the SVR model. Generally, the results of paper show that the prediction methods can use in the construction of other karst-rich water tunnels in the region.
1) In Introduction, when authors want to introduce some previous studies, please use the past sentences
2)Line 56: "propose" Should be "proposed"
3) Line 61: "construct" should be "constructed"
4) Line 75: Because this study uses the water balance method and underground runoff modulus method to predict tunnel water inflow. So Please introduce them in Introduction Section, Please point out some papers which used these methods. Why authors used these method.
5) Line 118: Should be "where"
6) Equation 6: Please explain what is H1 and H2
7) How you got the information of project in Section 3.1. Please cite some origins?
8) Section 3.1: Please add Figure to describe the location of contrustion site.
9) Line 190: missing spacing
10) Line 218-222: Please explain about difference in predicted accuracy among methods
11) Figure 8: why SVR predict results is different with actual value at various levels? Please explain Figure 8
Quality of English Language of the paper should be improved.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response.
Reviewer's Comments:
1) In Introduction, when authors want to introduce some previous studies, please use the past sentences
2)Line 56: "propose" Should be "proposed"
3) Line 61: "construct" should be "constructed"
5) Line 118: Should be "where"
9) Line 190: missing spacing
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. All the minor points have been addressed in the revised paper. The English has been polished to improve the readability of the paper. The new paper is attached.
4) Line 75: Because this study uses the water balance method and underground runoff modulus method to predict tunnel water inflow. So Please introduce them in Introduction Section, Please point out some papers which used these methods. Why authors used these method.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. Some references are added in the paper to explain the research of these method. The difference of predicted accuracy is shown in line 237-245.
6) Equation 6: Please explain what is H1 and H2
Authors' Response:
H1 means the water head around the tunnel. H2 means the groundwater head. All undeclared variables have been defined.
7) How you got the information of project in Section 3.1. Please cite some origins?
Authors' Response:
The authors undertook the tasks of long-term monitoring of tunnel hydrology. So, we got the water inflow amount data of the tunnel.
8) Section 3.1: Please add Figure to describe the location of contrustion site.
Authors' Response:
A new figure named “Location of Sanquan tunnel” is added in the paper to address the location of the tunnel site.
10) Line 218-222: Please explain about difference in predicted accuracy among methods
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. The following content has been added to the article.
“Based on the principle of water balance, the water balance method estimates groundwater runoff by calculating the relationship between precipitation, evaporation, and ground-water recharge. The water balance method is simple and easy to use, does not need many data and complex calculations, and is suitable for the overall water balance estimation, so its prediction accuracy is low [28]. Yet the groundwater runoff modulus method estimates groundwater runoff by calculating the flow rate and storage capacity of groundwater. It requires a lot of geological and hydrogeological data, and the established model is more complex and the model parametrizes selected for different regions are different, so its prediction accuracy is high.”
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors.
Better presentation is needed between tables and results.
Update of references is needed.
Similarity found should be reduced in text.
Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. With your help, the quality of the paper has greatly improved. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response. The new paper is attached.
Reviewer 's Comments:
(1) Authors should check typos and minor spelling errors.
Authors' Response:
Thank you for the friendly reminder from the reviewer. The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. All the minor points have been addressed in the revised paper. The English has been polished to improve the readability of the paper. The new paper is attached.
(2) Better presentation is needed between tables and results.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. The following content has been added to the article.
Line 316-318 “the authors have constructed a risk assessment index system for karst water inrush in tunnels, consisting of 4 primary indicators and 12 secondary indicators. These secondary”
Line 359 “while the maximum error is 0.146”
(3) Update of references is needed.
Authors' Response:
All references have been carefully checked and verified. A new reference on SVM model prediction is added in line 357.
(4) Similarity found should be reduced in text.
Authors' Response:
The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. Similarity found have be reduced in the new paper. The authors believe that the new article has made certain improvements and innovations compared to previous similar studies.
Thank you again to the editor and the reviewer. Thank you again to the editor and reviewers. The new article (with modifications highlighted in red) is attached.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for your response. I am very satisfied the revised manuscript.
Author Response
The authors wish to thank the editor and reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript. With your help, the quality of the paper has greatly improved. We hope the changes summarized below have made the manuscript suitable for publication and we look forward to your response. The new paper is attached.
