Research on the Stress Characteristics of Initial Tunnel Supports Based on Active Load Adjustment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Sirs,

 I revised the paper entitled “Research on stress characteristics of tunnel initial support based on active load adjustment” with a great interest.  

At the outset, I would like to point out that I have no objections to the presented content of the manuscript. However, I have a few comments that relate to the work. For me, the most important value concerns in the presentation form of the entire work, practical aspects which are pointed out clearly, clear text and well done figures.

 Abstract

In my opinion it would be much more engaging readers if it was shorter. The abstract is too long and it remains an introduction. In my opinion some sentences should be removed and there are some long sentences which should be shortened and all the text should be more essential. Anyway there is everything that should be included.

 Introduction

There are many studies devoted to recent advances in the understanding of deformation in constructions in tunneling. There are some approaches in determination of the stress phenomena as modeling of the process. So it would be nice if the authors inform the readers in some trends in research activities in this area.

“The interaction of tunnel surrounding rock support has been a hot spot of research by scholars from all over the world. The tunnel support structure is complex and difficult to predict, especially” Will you please write some information/citation documenting the history or the research on the problem. Who and initiated the studies on the problem? Basing on your information a reader is suggested that all scientific activity in the research area started in 2019.

Your beginning of the chapter 2 is full of many statements. Please add citations. For example: Under normal circumstances, the magnitude of support reaction is related to the deformation and support stiffness, and the support reaction at different positions in the tunnel cross section is weakly correlated, which is not conducive to the overall stiffness and bearing capacity of the support structure. OK how do we know that? Who is the author of the study on the problem and where are the results justifying the statement? It looks as the problem was not studied by author and this is reflected by very short list of literature positions. You made a good job but this short list suggests knowledge gaps.

 The main text 

The legend on the Fig.  9 must be larger. But the other figures are well done: they are very informative and suggestive.

2. Design of the load adjustment system

It should be the next chapter numbered as 3?

 I would suggest removing division in subchapters in chapter 4. They are short, the name of 4.1 sounds like 4, the contents are interrelated so in my opinion there is no sense to divide this chapter into parts. Or maybe please replace the word “implementation” by “installation”. My suggestion would be: 4.1 Procedure of the system installation ; 4.2 The analysis of the results

There are many interferences – see hand made comments in the attached file. Unfortunately there are a lot of grammar errors which must be corrected. I am sorry about that but the manuscript probably will be published in the prestigious journal. So I suggest those corrections in the text. The text is written in quite good English, in good style, very clearly and all figures are very clear. It would be nice if the authors will accept the comments and improvement of the language quality marked in the text in the attached scan. So all the corrections are to be done just to make a higher quality of the manuscript level ….

 The conclusions

I can’t accept such a final contents of the conclusions chapter. First of all a short summary should be made: just a few sentences outlining what was the problem, what was done and the results. And the next - as you write those three points of your remarks/conclusions, and as the next maybe should be the general conclusion as the fruits of your labour. The next is something to be written and which is always welcome by readers and reviewers: some considerations about what has been done, what the authors' contribution to the problem has been, and what they think needs to be done.  

 General remarks:

In my opinion the manuscript is a kind of technical note rather than a research paper. In spite of this it represents a good quality in description of new methodology developed through a new technical procedure and tool in solutions of a construction engineering problem.

The paper satisfies all the requirements and standards to be published in Applied Science. In my opinion the work makes the important contribution in research in the field of deformations in tunneling. I will recommend publishing the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made major revisions to the manuscript, including rewriting the abstract, adding sub chapter summaries, rewriting the conclusions and prospects, adding corresponding literature reviews, replacing unclear and nonstandard pictures, and modifying grammatical errors in the manuscript.

Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In manuscript entitled ‘’ Research on stress characteristics of tunnel initial support based on active load adjustment’’ authors provide an active intervention scheme for support force of tunnel surrounding rock, which can provide reference for the development and optimization design of tunnel support form. There are few issues that need to be addressed by authors before this manuscript could be reconsidered for publication:

1.       Abstract should be rewritten: it is not clear what is the main objective of the research, what methodology is applied and what main results are obtained, including the novelty of the paper. Current version of Abstract does not provide this information.

2.       Use of English should be significantly improved. There are many vague sentences, e.g. page 3, second paragraph: ‘’Is proposed in this paper….’’

3.       I cannot see any novelty in present paper: is the new design, load adjustment system, or something else? Authors are strongly encouraged to provide a clear novelty of their research.

4.       Table 1 – what is the type of surrounding rock? Igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic? Unit weight 17 kN/m3 is not correct; this is the value for the soil. Poisson value is also wrong. At what depth is tunnel constructed? Value of lateral pressure coefficient also seems low. What is elastic resistance coefficient? If K is elasticity modulus, it is also very low. Apart from this, range of values is commonly defined for each parameter of the surrounding rock.

5.       Figure 15 and 16 are not clear; what type of line refers to the force before and what to the force after adjustment?

6.       Section Conclusion is extremely short, while the paper lacks the section Discussion. Authors are advised to expand the section Conclusion with the clear review of the object, applied method and obtained results, comparison with previous approaches and results, novelties of the present paper and direction for further research. Section Discussion should also be added.

7.       Literature review is not adequate. There are numerous papers published in e.g. Tunnelling and Underground Space technology, Engineering Geology, Geotechnique etc dealing with the same or similar topics.

 Once these suggestions are taken into account, I will be pleased to review the revised manuscript and reconsider my decision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we have made major revisions to the manuscript, including rewriting the abstract, adding sub chapter summaries, rewriting the conclusions and prospects, adding corresponding literature reviews, replacing unclear and nonstandard pictures, and modifying grammatical errors in the manuscript.

Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors made corresponding changes in manuscript. I recommend acceptance of the paper in the current form.