Analysis of Shield Tunnels Undercrossing an Existing Building and Tunnel Reinforcement Measures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1- rewrite the abstract. Discuss which model you used and which methodology you adopted. Don't mention numbering in the abstract. Write at the end main findings of the study.

2- in introduction section, add state of the art literature review. Add latest paper in it.

3- add research significance, novelty and original contribution of this study.

4- can u discuss the case study building and tunnel in more detailed way.

5- can u discuss modelling in full detail. Constitutive model for materials, element type and others.

6- compare your results with previous findings.

7- add separate section for discussion.

8- conclusion are general. Specific conclusions regarding the conducted study need to be added.

 

Sentences are too long.

Do Write in past tense.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research is about the analysis of shield tunnels undercrossing the existing buildings. The concept of the manuscript is interesting; however, some improvements are required before further consideration. My queries and suggestions are as follows:

1.      The novelty of the study should be clearly mentioned in the abstract and introduction sections. The authors may provide the contributions and research gaps through some points in the Introduction section.

2.      Some research has already been done in this direction; thus, the authors should clarify the novelty of the study compared to the existing literature. Some are provided as follows:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2021.12.011; 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002102

3.      Provide an author(s) contribution table within the background to show the novelty of this study.

4.      Rename section 3 as a Mathematical model, and discuss what you assume to construct this study?

5.      What are the limitations of this study, and how one remove those limitations? What is the future research direction of this study? Those all should be mentioned in the Conclusion section.

 

6.      The reference section should be updated with recent publications.

The author(s) should check the manuscript for typos and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the influence of the excavation of double shield tunnels on the displacement and internal force of soil, segment, pile foundation and the building settlement. In addition, the control effect of the grouting reinforcement on pile displacement and building settlement is analyzed. It also concluded that the effect of the excavation of the tunnel is obviously nonlinear. However, the explanation or view for why there is a nonlinear effect existing is not given, which leads to the lack of illustration in the effect of the excavation of the tunnel. In order to study the influence of tunnel excavation, this paper has a wide range of objects and sufficient analysis parameters, which is the greatest contribution of this paper. The following questions need to be considered before acceptance:

1.     The reason for the nonlinear effect of tunnel excavation should be given.

2.     The referneces and citation in the paper should be double checked.

3.     The expression of the same object in the article should be consistent to avoid ambiguity

4.     The following paper might be helpful to revise the manuscript: 1) Suitability charts to select stabilizer for excavated soils and rocks (ESR).

 

Major revision. See the previous comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review this study.

The Introduction is clear and concise, I have nothing to object to. I like the format and flow of the article's content description, as well as the included references that help contextualize.

The literature review (referenced as "Engineering background") is also complete and well defined. I would only recommend seeing there a reference to the relevance of looking at CRM as one of the most powerful tools to evaluate the desires, expectations, and needs of customers, which I consider extremely relevant and miss in this study. There are several examples of this use of techniques and information systems as Customer Relationship Management (CRM) for innovative purposes (I especially recommend that you please review https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00800-x and make a citation of this publication). Given the current world conditions in which it is essential to know what customers expect from each action taken, it is crucial to consider tools such as CRM.

The methodology and the Empirical Results, shown in sections 3 to 7, are extremely clear in their understanding, even for a non-expert like me. The graphs and tables greatly help to understand and follow the research process that has been carried out.

The discussion and conclusions sections are clear and relevant, well founded on the results.

References are sufficient and relevant, although I would recommend the acceptance of this paper after including the reference and details of CRM review recommended literature.

The appendages are of great value.

In summary, I recommend the acceptance of the paper after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Previous comments were addresed

Some sentences are long

Reviewer 2 Report

The present form of the manuscript may be accepted for publication.

Check for typos and grammatical errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The comments have been all addressed. The paper can be considered for publication now.