Review Reports - Analysis of Control Technology for Large Deformation of a Geological Bedding Bias Tunnel with Weakly Cemented Surrounding Rock

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has value in term of applied engineering, however, it has less academic value as well as originality.

The manuscript needs to be re-written to improve quality especially the academic sound and originality.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

Thanks very much for your email and the reviewers’ comments, regarding our submission of the manuscript “Analysis of Control Technology for Large Deformation of Geologically Bedding bias Tunnel with Weakly Cemented Surrounding Rock” (Manuscript ID: sustainability-2573445).

The manuscript is now revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editor. Main changes in the text are in red in the revised manuscript.

Our responses to the comments by the reviewers are on separate pages.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- The Introduction chapter should be improved with new studies carried out for other tunnel projects out of China.

- The novelty of the paper should be emphasized in more detail.

- The geological characteristics of the excavated rock mass should be given in more detail.

- The main reasons for the differences in the distribution of stress between the surrounding rock of the tunnel should be explained and discussed.

- The usability of the obtained results from this manuscript in other tunnel projects and the benefits for other tunnel projects should be explained in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

The manuscript is now revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editor. Main changes in the text are in red in the revised manuscript.

Our responses to the comments by the reviewers are on separate pages.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is written very poorly and has a number of issues that are given as follows:

1. Check the title. The word with is used multiple time which is not correct.

2. The abstract is written very poorly. The authors haven't discussed the methodology adopted in the study.

3. The introduction section needs to be modified and checked for grammatical errors.

4. L90: It's engineering not gngineering

5. The authors should provide a literature review section. The literature review performed in this study is very poor and vague.

6. The research gaps and methodology should be described clearly.

7. The discussion should be modified and the authors should compare their results with some other studies.

8. The conclusion section can be improved based on the changes given above.

9. The references should be checked for uniform style. Some more references should be added.

Overall the manuscript is poorly written and needs extensive revision.

Extensive editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

The manuscript is now revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editor. Main changes in the text are in red in the revised manuscript.

Our responses to the comments by the reviewers are on separate pages.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript has been improved to show findings and contribution of the research. However, the author needs to describes more detail of methods and equipments used to monitor stress and displacement showing in section 2.

In section 2, the author should discuss reason to choose the method and equipment type to monitor as there is a variation of results with different monitoring method and equipment.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

The manuscript is now revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editor. Main changes in the text are in red in the revised manuscript.

Our responses to the comments by the reviewers are on separate pages.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is acceptable in its current state.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Reviewer 3 Report

Comment 1: L 16: The _ sign should be deleted

Comment2: L 20: The _ sign and underline should be removed.

Comment 3: Figure 7 is not given. The authors must check the numbering of the figures. From figure 6 and onward, there is some confusion in the numbering of figures.

Comment 4: Try to proofread the manuscript again and remove the minor errors. The authors should go for professional proof reading.

Moderate editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

The manuscript is now revised according to the suggestions of the reviewers and editor. Main changes in the text are in red in the revised manuscript.

Our responses to the comments by the reviewers are on separate pages.

With best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jinmao Ju, Ph. D.

Lecturer

School of Geology and Mining Engineering

Xinjiang University

Urumqi, 830046, P. R. China

E-mail:jmju@xju.edu.cn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf