Complex Function Solution of Stratum Displacements and Stresses in Shallow Rectangular Pipe Jacking Excavation Considering the Convergence Boundary

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some comments about the manuscript.

 

-The sentence "The finite element simulation and the engineering measured data are used for comparison and verification" is repeated in the abstract.

-It is recommended to place in Figure 2 what each symbol means.

-Please check line 111.

-Please check the symbols in Figures 3 and 4.

-Please check that for each symbol used in the equations, its meaning is explained.

-A brief explanation of "conformal transformation" and "potential function" can be interesting for the reader.

-Add references in sections 2 and 3.

-In section 4, more details about FEM are necessary, i.e. solver, initial conditions, convergence mesh, etc.

-In my opinion, the comparison in Figure 8 presents an important deviation... Is this method better than the rest of what we have in the literature?

-The effect of the parameters on the functions of interest is regularly modeled/simulated, and subsequently the comparison is presented with experimental results. The latter must be reinforced with other types of results or data taken from the literature.

-Please revise the format of the template for this journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor revision of the English may help the reading of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should improve their English throughout the manuscript.

There are several typos: please check and correct them.

The state of the art is excellent and well articulated. The purpose of the paper is clear and well illustrated, therefore only minor corrections are required.

Figure 3 is not clear; please replace it.

Please the authors to provide more details on the FEM analysis performed.

Details are required on the mechanical parameters used, the constraint, and contact conditions.

Details of the type of software and elements used are welcome.

Nice work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should improve their English throughout the manuscript.

There are several typos: please check and correct them.

The state of the art is excellent and well articulated. The purpose of the paper is clear and well illustrated, therefore only minor corrections are required.

Figure 3 is not clear; please replace it.

Please the authors to provide more details on the FEM analysis performed.

Details are required on the mechanical parameters used, the constraint, and contact conditions.

Details of the type of software and elements used are welcome.

Nice work!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review comments:

 1.          The abstract could benefit from a clearer outline of the paper's objectives, methodology, and key findings. A concise summary of the problem addressed and the significance of the proposed solution would enhance the abstract's effectiveness.

2.          The introduction is comprehensive but could be more engaging. Including a brief overview of the paper's structure and a clear statement of the problem being addressed would make it more reader-friendly.

3.          Ensure that the mathematical methods, especially those involving complex functions, are explained with utmost clarity. It's crucial that the reader can follow the model and methods without ambiguity.

4.          While the literature review covers various methods used in tunnel excavation, it would be advantageous to provide a more critical analysis of the existing approaches, highlighting their limitations and how the proposed method addresses or improves upon

5.          The comparison between analytical solutions, finite element simulations, and engineering-measured data is crucial. Consider presenting this comparison more systematically, using tables or graphs to illustrate the quantitative differences. This will strengthen the validation of the proposed method.

6.          It would be helpful to explicitly discuss the limitations of the proposed model and method. Addressing assumptions made during the analysis and acknowledging potential constraints will provide a more transparent view of the study's scope.

7.          Expand on the section discussing future work. Provide specific suggestions for potential research directions or improvements in the proposed methodology. This will demonstrate a forward-looking perspective and contribute to the paper's completeness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the revised manuscript, the authors took into account all comments. The article can be recommended for publication in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript titled "Complex function solution of stratum displacements and stresses in the

shallow rectangular pipe jacking excavation considering convergence boundary," I am happy to report that the authors have effectively addressed all of the concerns raised in the previous review, and have made significant improvements to the paper.

The revised manuscript is well-written, with clear and easy-to-follow descriptions of the methods and results. The authors have also provided additional justifications and explanations to address the previous review comments, and have provided a more comprehensive discussion of the results and their implications.

Overall, the authors have done an excellent job in revising the manuscript, and it is now of high quality and ready for publication.