Research on the Mechanism and Safe Thickness of Karst Tunnel-Induced Water Inrush under the Coupling Action of Blasting Load and Water Pressure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript submitted needs significant improvement in terms of writing and data analysis. The formatting of the manuscript needs to be rechecked to make some sentences understandable as in the abstract.

1. The data in the analysis of numerical model results need to be quantified.

2. What is the combined effect of Figure 8?

3. The reviewer presumes that the data is validated with the experimental results or any visual findings, however, such result has not been presented in the submitted manuscript.

4. Why there is a discrepancy in the data in Figure 12 with the increase in the rock wall width? 

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.    The respected authors give in the article obvious general schemes on the interaction of SPH-FEM methods, but do not give any technical description of the problem. For example:
- the contact parameters between the media in Figure 2;
- fracture criterion, particle removal from the ground and HJC model description for limestone;
- pulse type for JWL model, change of initial pressure from explosion in time;
- no data on natural permeability of limestone;
- how to determine the value of Lc based on the analytical relationship?
 The particular case of Lc = 1.18m can not be relevant even within the array of the same soil (limestone) because the soil contains mechanical heterogeneities.
And others.

2.    The conclusions of the article are poorly written, because they do not have a pronounced component of scientific novelty. The first paragraph describes what is done in the article. But it is not a scientific result.
(1) It is an obvious statement of a physical process. What is the novelty of the mathematical model, the ways of modeling the interaction of media?
(2) We need quantitative numerical data, for example, from 20%-40%, at a pressure of 100 ... Otherwise it is difficult to understand how this conclusion will be useful to researchers or designers.
(3) This is a private result, as an illustration of the workability of the approach, nothing more. Is it possible to apply the found thickness of 3.08 m for another soil, at another depth of drilling, in the presence of water pressure in the karst cavity? I am sure that no.

Nevertheless, with qualitative correction of the remarks, the article can be considered as a candidate for publication.

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments on the article have been corrected. Perhaps a correction of the English language is needed, but the idea of ​​the article is clear.