Modeling the Dynamics of Water and Mud Inrush in Fault Fracture Zones: The Role of Seepage–Erosion Interactions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper "Modeling the Dynamics of Water and Mud Inrush in Fault Fracture Zones: The Role of Seepage-Erosion Interactions" presents research related to the field of geological science, in general.

 

-        Keywords should not be identical words from the title of the paper. Changes are suggested.

-        In the introductory part, you should refer to research in the world and add a reference, not only domestic.

-        The hydrogeological part (Darcy's law, etc.) in the introduction corresponds more to the chapter related to methodology. References are also not provided.

-        Chapter 2 is written more like a textbook. General definitions and postulates do not need to be emphasized, they are common knowledge. It should be shaped and made as a methodological procedure that was used.

-        Chapters 3 - Before validating the model, it is necessary to add model settings and calibration. The validation process always goes after that.

-        Chapters 3 and 4 should be harmonized and a more extensive discussion added.

-        Do not use the grammatical form Our … it is form is OK.

-        The conclusion does not correspond to the rules of writing a scientific paper. It is similar to an abstract. It is necessary to concisely state the scientific contribution of the conducted research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the article.

 

The topics discussed in the article are extremely important in terms of ensuring traffic safety, human safety and construction safety and health and safety at work.

The models and sequences used are correct, the results constitute a source of research that should be constantly expanded. Because ground and water conditions may change as a result of various atmospheric phenomena.

Nevertheless, please take my comments into account and refer to them in the text:

1. Introduction. Please expand. The literature presented is not sufficient. Please indicate literature items from Europe and around the world.

2. Please reword the main points and structure of the article.

- point 2 should be materials and methods

- point 3, the research object should be presented. Detailed description, photos, location

- point 4 Test results

- point 5 Discussion of the obtained results

- point 6 Conclusions from the conducted research/analysis

At the moment it is not readable.

3. In the summary, please write clearly what are the limitations of the models used, what caused the biggest problem and why.

4. Please check the text for language, there are stylistic errors.

 

Regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well-written with clear objectives and a well-organized structure. The study effectively describes a promising model for understanding and potentially mitigating mud and water inrush disasters during tunnel construction. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

 

1.     Provide references for sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, and include the units of each parameter in the equations.

2.     The authors should provide a more detailed explanation and discussion of Figure 3-7 (page 6, lines 244-249).

3.     Revise the titles of figures and tables to be more specific and provide clearer descriptions of their content.

4.     Modify Table 2. Physical Parameters for easier understanding.

5.     Recheck lines 275-278 on page 9 and lines 282-286 on page 10 for figure titles and explanations of results and discussion.

6.     Include axis titles on the Y-axis of Figures 9, 10, and 11 for clarity.

7.     Double-check the units on the X, Y1, and Y2 axes of Figures 12 and 13 for clarity.

8.     For optimal clarity, each figure and table should be explicitly referenced within the text before its placement in the document. For example, the authors should consider revising the placement of Figure 9 (page 11, lines 314-322), Figure 10 (page 12, lines 333-342), Figure 11 (page 13, lines 352-357), Figure 12 (page 13, lines 360-366), and Figure 13 (page 12, lines 370-377) to ensure they appear closer to where they are first mentioned in the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text is well-written and informative; however, the author could improve the flow and clarity on some part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author have made an effort to follow the suggestions and improve the quality of the scientific article. A few more suggestions will be added.

 

-        CONCLUSION: It is necessary to concisely state the scientific contribution of the conducted research, as well as the contribution to the academic community.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf