Technical Summary of Tunnel Mud Pumping Treatment and a Method of Pressure Reduction by Water Release
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are some issues with this paper that need to be corrected and clarified.
1. The analysis of literature sources needs to be expanded. In doing so, the authors need to make a clearer critical analysis in order to highlight the previously unsolved problem.
2. What is the purpose and objectives of this study? This needs to be stated.
3. There are no references to formulas (1) and (2) in the text of the article. If these formulas are the author's, this should be indicated.
4. There is no “Discussion” section in the article.
5. “Conclusions” is marked twice in the article.
Author Response
1. The analysis of literature sources needs to be expanded. In doing so, the authors need to make a clearer critical analysis in order to highlight the previously unsolved problem.
Description: According to the expert's suggestion, the literature source is reorganized and expanded, highlighting the research background and the shortcomings of the existing research to illustrate the necessity of the article's research.
2. What is the purpose and objectives of this study? This needs to be stated.
Description: By modifying the abstract of the article and the source of the literature, the purpose of this study is to propose a treatment measure to fundamentally solve the problem of mud pumping in the tunnel. This measure can be used in advance, where there is no disease or possible disease, to achieve the purpose of prevention.
3. There are no references to formulas (1) and (2) in the text of the article. If these formulas are the author's, this should be indicated.
Description: In this paper, the origin of these two formulas is given, and some of the text here is modified.
4. There is no “Discussion” section in the article.
Description: There is no 'discussion' section in the article.
5. “Conclusions” is marked twice in the article.
Description: Modified.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor comments:
1. The research gap and research significance should be emphasized to make them clear to the readers.
2. The authors are suggested to follow the template of this journal step by step making sure this manuscript is done right according to the journal template.
3. The reviewer suggested the authors to add more comparison of the results by the more method proposed by the authors, especially the numeric results.
4. The title of this manuscript can be optimized.
5. A discussion is generally required for project-based research paper.
Minor comments:
1. The authors are suggested to have a thorough check of the letters and symbols used in the formula and the following text content.
2. All the figures with numbers should have unit.
3. Some figures can be revised to fit the outlet of the page.
4. Make sure all the font size in each figure are the same, if not, at least close.
5. Content in Table 1 and Table 2 should be revised to make it simpler but clearer.
6. More international references are recommended if possible.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors are suggested the have a professional language editor to make this manuscript readable for international readers.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Major comments:
- The research gap and research significance should be emphasized to make them clear to the readers.
Description: It has been modified. The article strengthens the discussion of research differences, rewrites the abstract and literature source analysis, and clarifies the research significance.
- The authors are suggested to follow the template of this journal step by step making sure this manuscript is done right according to the journal template.
Description: The template has been modified and adjusted.
- The reviewer suggested the authors to add more comparison of the results by the more method proposed by the authors, especially the numeric results.
Description: This paper supplements the shortcomings of traditional measures to deal with the disease of tunnel mud pumping to enhance the contrast effect and adds a detailed on-site construction process and some key drawings of the technology. This topic will carry out an indoor physical model test in the next stage and explain this measure from the aspects of mechanism and quantitative effect.
- The title of this manuscript can be optimized.
Description: The title has been modified.
- A discussion is generally required for project-based research paper.
Description: According to the expert opinion and the content of the journal template, the discussion part of the article is added.
Minor comments:
- The authors are suggested to have a thorough check of the letters and symbols used in the formula and the following text content.
Description: Modified.
- All the figures with numbers should have unit.
Description: It has been modified. Units are added to some graphs without units.
- Some figures can be revised to fit the outlet of the page.
Description: Modified.
- Make sure all the font size in each figure are the same, if not, at least close.
Description: Modified.
- Content in Table 1 and Table 2 should be revised to make it simpler but clearer.
Description: It has been modified. Simplify the table content, only highlight the core content. Specifically, Table 1 is linguistically modified, and Table 2 deletes the impact assessment of relatively unimportant factors.
- More international references are recommended if possible.
Description: According to the expert opinion, the article logic is reorganized and the literature source analysis is supplemented.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper titled 'Research on Drainage Tunnel -- Self-priming Pump Technology for Remediation of Mud-Pumping Disease in Loess Tunnel' is not an original research paper. It is kind of a review paper that has many shortcomings. So, my decision will be to resubmit after major revision. The detailed comments are as follows:
1. Abstract needs to be improved significantly. It is not clearly written. What is the background of the problem? What is the aim and what is the methodology for achieving this aim?
2. The literature review is very weak and needs improvement.
3. The quality of figure 5 needs to be improved.
4. The methodology section should be clear. The authors should explain the process to attain the aim/objectives of the study.
5. A discussion section should be added.
6. There are two conclusion sections in the manuscript.
The authors should improve and rewrite the manuscript.
*******ALL THE BEST************************
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate English editing is required.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
- Abstract needs to be improved significantly. It is not clearly written. What is the background of the problem? What is the aim, and what is the methodology for achieving this aim?
Description: The abstract part has been rewritten.
- The literature review is very weak and needs improvement.
Description: According to the expert's suggestion, the literature source is reorganized and expanded, highlighting the research background and the shortcomings of the existing research to illustrate the necessity of the article's research.
- The quality of Figure 5 needs to be improved.
Description: Modified.
- The methodology section should be clear. The authors should explain the process to attain the aim or objectives of the study.
Description: This paper supplements the shortcomings of traditional measures to deal with the disease of tunnel mud pumping to enhance the contrast effect and adds a detailed on-site construction process and some key drawings of the technology. This topic will carry out an indoor physical model test in the next stage and explain this measure from the aspects of mechanism and quantitative effect.
- A discussion section should be added.
Description: Added.
- There are two conclusion sections in the manuscript.
Description: Modified.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors really took into account the recommendations and comments. However, in my opinion, the Discussion section is very condensed. It needs to be improved. Here it is necessary to provide information on how this study solves the problem identified by the authors? What are the limitations of this study? Its assumptions? Prospects for further development in this direction, etc.
Author Response
- The authors really took into account the recommendations and comments. However, in my opinion, the Discussion section is very condensed. It needs to be improved. Here it is necessary to provide information on how this study solves the problem identified by the authors? What are the limitations of this study? Its assumptions? Prospects for further development in this direction, etc.
Description: The modification of the discussion section has been completed. The original background introduction is deleted, which expands the information and limitations of this study on how to solve this problem and looks forward to the further development of this direction.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript is improved significantly and can be accepted in current form
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor check is required
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Based on your suggestions, the language in some parts of the article was further polished and improved to make the language in the article more fluent and professional.
Thank you again, really appreciate it!
