Comparative Analysis of the Numerical Simulation and Measured Data of an Existing Tunnel Subjected to Multiple Disturbances: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study discusses the effect of multi-disturbances on an existing tunnel during the construction of an over-crossing tunnel for Hangzhou Metro Line 7 as a case study. The numerical simulation is compared with the measured data to analyse the response of the existing tunnel to these disturbances. The engineering approach undertaken in this study is much appreciated. However, the present work's novelty and contributions are unclear. There are several concerns must be addressed before it can be re-submitted for publication.

·         The paper gives the impression of a project report instead of a research article. As this is a case study article, the title should be revised and clearly mentioned about it. For example, “Comparative analysis of the numerical simulation and measured data of an existing tunnel subjected to multiple disturbances: A Case Study.”

·         Several studies have been conducted to compare the behaviour of underground construction to existing construction [1]. I recommend writing an extra paragraph to justify using this new approach to the tunnelling industry. Furthermore, what were the authors' novel contributions? How does this contribute to the body of knowledge from these existing published papers such as [2][3][4]? Emphasize the unique aspects or novel contributions.

[1] Meng, Fan-yan, et al. "Contributions to responses of existing tunnel subjected to nearby excavation: A review." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 119 (2022): 104195.

[2] Tan, Yong, et al. "Zoned excavation of an oversized pit close to an existing metro line in stiff clay: Case study." Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29.6 (2015): 04014158.

[3] Zheng, Gang, et al. "Deformation and protection of existing tunnels at an oblique intersection angle to an excavation." International Journal of Geomechanics 20.8 (2020): 05020004.

[4] Li, Haoran, et al. "Multiple Disturbances of Existing Tunnels Caused by Deep Excavation and New Shield Tunnel." Advances in Civil Engineering 2023 (2023).

·         A literature review is not sufficiently detailed. A separate new section can be written to identify the existing research knowledge gap. To address such problems, it is suggested to discuss in detail the tunnelling-related papers and cite and review them.

·         The article also needs to create a separate methodology chapter. The methodology should be written like a research article in which writers account for how they carried out their research. The methods section should be clear and detailed enough for another experienced person to repeat the research and reproduce the results. However, the most important part of this research, the detailed information on numerical simulation, is missing. How numerical simulation is conducted in this study needs to be added in more detail.

·         After the numerical simulation, were any practical measures taken to reduce horizontal displacement during construction, or were they only conducted after the project was completed and compared with field data?

·         The deformations and displacements of existing tunnels should have acceptable limits; in some similar cases, they can be up to 30mm [1]. This paper does not explicitly mention specific acceptable limits for deformations and displacements of existing tunnels.

·         The results are drawn based on minimal amounts of displacement, which are generally not considered in tunnelling. How accurate were the field measuring data?

·         Please provide the displacement values throughout the construction period. Understanding the displacement behaviour over a period of time is crucial.

·         The numerical simulation displacement values in Figures 6 and 7 are not readable. Please resize them for the readers.

·         In Figures 10, 11, and 12, what is the unit of displacement? Is it (mm)? Please mention it.

·         Authors are suggested to have a native English technical writer review the manuscript, which would greatly improve its flow and readability. The language, vocabulary, and grammar must also be improved. There are incorrect noun numbers, faulty subject-verb agreement, inconsistent hyphenation, determiner use, compound/complex sentence punctuation, and other writing issues.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors are suggested to have a native English technical writer review the manuscript, which would greatly improve its flow and readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

 

Journal: Applied Sciences (ISSN 2076-3417)

Manuscript ID: applsci-3002329

Type: Article

Title: Comparative analysis of the numerical simulation and measured data of an existing tunnel subjected to multiple disturbances

 

Comment and decision: The article substantively is written correctly. It contains a numerical analysis of deformation compared with in-situ displacement studies. It is certainly an interesting case study.

While I have no substantive comments, I have noticed editorial faults which in my opinion should be corrected before the article is published. All comments are included below.

 Decision: the article can be published once the indicated editorial faults have been corrected (see *.pdf, please).

Yours faithfully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the major issues related to the work's novelty and contributions to the body of knowledge, which can have academic value in the tunnelling industry. However, some MINOR points need to be addressed for better understanding of readers before it can be considered for publication.

 

1) Abstract: Line 11, what is meant by Both methods. Which methods? One is MIDAS GTS, and which one is the other?

2) Introduction section: The introduction section now gives readers a better understanding; however, it directly starts with the context of China. The authors should mention the general importance of the tunnelling industry and the risks associated with tunnelling before moving to the main context of the paper. For example, these papers can be added to give a generic start to the introduction section.

[1] Zhang, Kangjian, Xing Zhao, and Zhiqiang Zhang. "Influences of tunnelling parameters in tunnel boring machine on stress and displacement characteristics of surrounding rocks." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 137 (2023): 105129.

[2] Sharafat, Abubakar, Kamran Latif, and Jongwon Seo. "Risk analysis of TBM tunneling projects based on generic bow-tie risk analysis approach in difficult ground conditions." Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 111 (2021): 103860.

 

[3] Zhou, Hong, et al. "Risk assessment and management via multi-source information fusion for undersea tunnel construction." Automation in Construction 111 (2020): 103050.

3) The Response to previous comment 7 should be added to the manuscript for better understanding of readers. Also, please always mention the line number in response to all the changes made in the manuscript.

4) Figures 10,11, and 12 legends need to be resized. They are not readable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf