Formation Mechanism and Control Technology of an Excavation Damage Zone in Tunnel-Surrounding Rock
, Chun Chen 4, Jianchun Wu 4, Qiqiang Nie 4, Ning Yang 3,*, Yanchun Liu 3 and Junwei Liu 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is written nicely and the topic is of great interest to a variety of audiences. The results section briefly concludes the essence of the article but the introduction seems a little weak for final acceptance. I will suggest giving it a slight modification and instead of using small sentences try to conclude the statement as a whole. Rest the following comments should be taken care of:
1. There are several flaws in the introduction part of the manuscript have been noticed. Correct the continuity and advised strictly to stick with the aims of the study.
2. Only the latest literature relevant to the study should be included in the manuscript.
3. What's the duration of the test? Are they conducted simultaneously or after a specific period? kindly incorporate reliable information.
4. In Table 1, Correct the alphabet "s" in sandstone to uppercase.
5. Several linguistic and grammatical errors have been encountered during the thorough examination. The authors should have been careful during the preparation of the article.
6. The discussion and conclusion part of the manuscript should be specifically elaborated in terms of the findings, future perspective, and practical applicability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. It contains two documents, which are respond letter and manuscript with revision traces (marked in red).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors combined the field test and numerical simulation method to fully investigate and study the loosening of tunnel surrounding rock under different blasting construction methods. The analysis route in the manuscript is clear and the article structure is complete. I suggest that the manuscript be considered for acceptance after slight modification.
1. The authors should fully examine the references in the introduction. Outdated references should be reduced to ensure that the study was based on the latest research.
2. Since the test cannot be carried out at the top of the tunnel due to irresistible factors in the description of lines 209-213, the corresponding top monitoring hole in Figure 7 should be deleted.
3. The expression of lines 243-245 is not clear, it should be reorganized and clearly described.
4. The authors should examine the serial number of the formula.
5. There are minor problems in the grammar of some sentences in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. It contains two documents, which are respond letter and manuscript with revision traces (marked in red).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
n/a
Author Response
We are very grateful to reviewer 3 for their attention to our manuscripts. Reviewer 3 had no additional comment. We have checked and self-revised the manuscript after the revision of the other two reviewers’ comments.
