The Construction Methods and Control Mechanisms for Subway Station Undercrossing an Existing Tunnel at Zero Distance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Nice work and the content is consistent with Applied Sciences. I suggest accepting this work after the authors answer the following questions.

1. Given the simulations and studies, what were the primary reasons behind the high amount of settlement observed in Scheme I (L-type beam + full-face excavation)? Could any modifications be made to this scheme to reduce the settlement, or is it inherently flawed?

 

2. You mention that the settlement during excavation changes significantly in Scheme III (temporary steel column + double-pilot tunnel). Can you explain what factors or variables might be causing these substantial fluctuations during excavation?

 

3. You conclude that Scheme II (pier column + double-pilot tunnel method) or a combination of pier column + double-pilot tunnel method can control the deformation better. Can you provide more detail on why this method was superior in controlling deformation, and what specific aspects of this scheme contributed to its success in this respect?

 

Language is find. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the newly built Chigang station of Guangzhou Metro Line 12, this manuscript introduces three construction methods of subway station passing through the existing tunnel at zero distance, analyzes the deformation control mechanism of each scheme and further performs combinatorial optimization. Considering the content and methodology of the study, this is within the scope of Applied Sciences-Basel.

This manuscript adopts numerical simulation to predict and analyze the construction effectiveness of the proposed novel construction methods, which is well-referenced for on-site construction and provides good added value to the current state of knowledge on the topic.

However, some issues were identified and required to be addressed to further improve the quality of the manuscript. I encourage the authors to take the following points into account and make the appropriate and necessary changes to the manuscript before final publication.

 

Detailed comments and observations are listed below.

 

1. How feasible are the three construction methods? This is the key to this manuscript. Are the size parameters consistent for each solution? The stiffness and size of the supporting structures in each scheme will have a significant impact on the control of the deformation of the existing tunnel.

 

2. Why was the full-face tunneling method chosen in Scheme I instead of the double-pilot tunneling method in section 3.1? This allows a more direct comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of the three approaches. I hope that the authors will add to the relevant design basis.

 

3. In section 4, what is the basis for the parameters of the Modified-Cam-Clay model used in the article? To my knowledge, the parameters of the modified Cambridge model are generally not reflected in engineering geological survey reports. In addition, the software used for numerical simulation should be supplemented in the text.

 

4. In Fig. 12, the deformation of the existing tunnel in conditions 1 and 2, and in conditions 3 and 4, during the construction of the support structure should be the same. This need not be shown separately. Why there are certain differences in the results of numerical simulations when the same structure is used.

 

5. The lack of units in the cloud maps in the paper may affect others in understanding the size of structural deformations. I hope the authors can fill in the corresponding explanation.

 

6. In the introduction, The discussion of the main research should be more focused. For example, line 53: the safety and resilience of the tunnels subjected to close construction projects should be discussed. Some references should be cited, e.g. doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107456.& Machine learning-based classification of rock discontinuity trace: SMOTE oversampling integrated with GBT ensemble learning

It is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments: applsci-2473635

In the present investigation, the authors examine the research article having title “The Construction Methods and Control Mechanisms for Subway Station Undercrossing an Existing Tunnel at Zero Distance”. This work appears to be well-developed, intriguing, and original. Figures and Tables are included for better improvisation. I recommend the publication after minor changes. My suggestions are listed below:

Ø  Add some very recent papers to enhance the introduction related to your study especially from the Applied Science Journal.

Ø  What is the main contribution addressed by you regarding the field?

Ø  Add some major results in the abstract.

Ø  The novelty of the problem should be mentioned in the last section of the introduction.

Used number system in the text as well as in references. According to the Journal format.

English is fine only minor editing is required.

 

Author Response

请参阅附件

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the answer.

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be accepted in the current form.

It is fine.