Mechanical Analysis of Bolt-Lining Combined Support in Deeply Buried Circular Tunnel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article is overally well written, the content is aranged in logiacal way. However i think that some changes to the used english language are required.

Authors present both the analytical and numerical model. The analytical part is well presented, however the numerical part is lacking in some ways. Mainly the description of the numerical model should be expanded. In my opinion more details about elements should be included. Authors use ANSYS-specific names as Plane42, targe 169 or contact171 which are not clear for readers unfamiliar with this particular software. In this case it should be explained more. Additionally details about boundary conditions should be added. There is also no inforamtion about constitutive models used for modelling the materials.

The values in table 1 should be in one line.

In the Chapter 4 authors present the effect of the three Young's modulus values. What was the basis for selecing values of 10, 11 and 12 GPa?

The fig. 10 and 11 are hardly legible. Maybe different colours should be use for different values?

 

- 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Mechanical analysis of bolt-lining combined support in deeply buried circular tunnel” (ID: applsci-1904533). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have revised the manuscript. The responds to the reviewer1’ comments are listed below.

Reviewer#1:

• The analytical part is well presented, however the numerical part is lacking in some ways. Mainly the description of the numerical model should be expanded. In my opinion more details about elements should be included. Authors use ANSYS-specific names as Plane42, targe 169 or contact171 which are not clear for readers unfamiliar with this particular software. In this case it should be explained more. Additionally details about boundary conditions should be added. There is also no information about constitutive models used for modelling the materials.

Authors’ response: We are sorry that did not describe clearly the the numerical part. The detailed description of numerical part is supplemented in Section3 of the revised manuscript.

 

• The values in table 1 should be in one line.

Authors’ response: We have make the correction in the revised manuscript.

 

• In the Chapter 4 authors present the effect of the three Young's modulus values. What was the basis for selecing values of 10, 11 and 12 GPa?

Authors’ response: The content of this part is to study the influence of lining Young's modulus on the whole support structure. The selection of parameters refers to the literature: Fei S, Wang H, Jiang M. Analytical solutions for lined circular tunnels in viscoelastic rock considering various interface conditions. Applied Mathematical Modelling,2018, 55(MAR.):109-130.

 

• The fig. 10 and 11 are hardly legible. Maybe different colours should be use for different values?

Authors’ response: We have make the correction in the revised manuscript.

 

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, a mechanical model for a deeply buried circular tunnel is proposed. The theoretical part as well as the simulation one are well described and commented. I have a minor remark, in the Introduction, the improvements coming from this paper do not emerge clearly. I suggest adding a few sentences to highlight this issue with respect to the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Mechanical analysis of bolt-lining combined support in deeply buried circular tunnel” (ID: applsci-1904533). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have revised the manuscript. The responds to the reviewer2’ comments are listed below.

 

Reviewer#2:

• in the Introduction, the improvements coming from this paper do not emerge clearly. I suggest adding a few sentences to highlight this issue with respect to the literature.

Authors’ response: We have added some necessary statements in the revised draft to highlight the improvement on relevant research content.

 

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx