Construction Stability Analysis and Field Monitoring of Shallowly Buried Large-Section Tunnels in Loess Strata
, Zhanping Song 1,2,*, Jiahui Wang 1,2, Yuwei Zhang 1,2, Naifei Liu 1,2, Kehui Xiao 1 and Yan Wang 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the stability of shallowly buried large-section tunnel in loess strata under different construction measures is analyzed by combining numerical simulation and field monitoring with the basis of the Huanxian No. 1 Tunnel of the Xi-Yin Railway. This research has certain reference value for improving the efficiency and safety of tunnel construction, but the author should address and clarify the following issues.
1. The references in this article only found papers by Chinese authors, please consider international literature on the subject.
2. The author's writing format in the introduction chapter is incorrect, and it is suggested to revise it again.
3. The text of Fig. 6(b) in section 3.1 is blurred and redrawing is recommended.
4. The color depth of the title text in the coordinate of Fig. 12 in Section 5.1 is inconsistent, so it is recommended to draw it again.
5. In Section 5.1, there is little analysis of the differences between the simulated and measured values of the arch settlement, and the author should further strengthen the discussion and analysis.
6. The numerical notation in Fig. 13(c) in section 5.2 is somewhat confusing and is suggested to be redrawn.
7. Conclusion (1) in Section 6 is too simple, and it is suggested that the author modify and supplement conclusion (1).
Suggest accept after modification!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis investigation will provide a guiding information for Geologist, structural engineering and construction of tunnels. The manuscript is well written and presented; however please discuss or incorporated the following comments.
The reference numbers in the text to be in superscript format to avoid confusion , e.g. page 2 line 54 “ tunnel in loess6.
Page 7 line 279 and 280, from figure 6(b) it is not obvious L44'>L33'?.
Page 8: Figure 6b mark and present point 3' and 4'.
Page 8 line 297, "spinner" is not standard term, please define this key point or component.
Page 8 lines 306 to 308, please address the point that the area of-ve bending moment in K1 is limited compared to k2 and K1.
Page 9, line 320 remain remove above with excavation footage.
Page 9, line 320 to 321, I suggest for the Authors to present and provide figures for lining time optimization to show S and Z curves
Page 11, line 393: add negative sign for the compressive stress to read
“and -1485.84 kPa”.
Page 13, line 424 rephrase “Engineering structures” to structural Engineering.
Page 14 line 466 “which code? Please state the code.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic and purpose of the paper are of interest to both the geotechnical and the tunnelling community.
The paper presents in detail the numerical results of the analysis of a large-section tunnel located in Loess strata, assuming different excavation footages and lining construction timings. The numerical results are compared to the monitoring data. Relevant conclusions are drawn from the study carried out.
This paper is very well written and organized. The approach and analysis are clearly described.
Only a few remarks:
1. I believe that reference 4 is not mentioned in the paper;
2. Figure 1 should be mentioned in the text;
3. Figures 13 a) and Figure 13 b) are difficult to read. For ease of analysis these figures should be enlarged.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am happy with the changes, and suggest to accept the revised version.
