Numerical Simulation of Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure for Underground Engineering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Numerical Simulation Investigation of corrugated steel concrete prefabricated support structure for underground engineering. This manuscript needs minor revision.
The following Comments are to be addressed before the acceptance of the manuscript.
· Change the Title as follows
“Numerical Simulation of Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure for Underground Engineering”
· Mention the software name used for simulation in the abstract.
· Section 2.2. The first line is incomplete.
· Fix this error “Error! Reference source not found” throughout the manuscript’
· State few line about the software you used for this work
· Conclusion should be with the presentation of the scope for future research
· Add a section “List of symbols”
· Reference format need to be corrected as per Sustainability journal format.
· The citation format within the main text is not as per the Sustainability journal format
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully studied your suggestions and made revisions to each of them. The changes are as follows:
1.Change the Title as follows:“Numerical Simulation of Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure for Underground Engineering”:
The manuscript's title has been updated to: "Numerical Simulation of Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure for Underground Engineering."
2.Mention the software name used for simulation in the abstract:
The abstract now includes the name of the software used for simulation. The modifications are highlighted in red in the abstract.
3.Section 2.2. The first line is incomplete:
This issue arose during the formatting adjustments made by the editor. The editor has been informed to assist in resolving it.
4.Fix this error “Error! Reference source not found” throughout the manuscript”:
The error "Error! Reference source not found" has been fixed throughout the manuscript, ensuring proper referencing.
5.State few line about the software you used for this work:
A brief section has been added to the manuscript to provide information about the software used for this work. The added content, which reads, "Abaqus is widely used software for finite element analysis and computer-aided engineering simulations. It employs advanced numerical methods and algorithms, allowing it to provide highly accurate simulation results. Due to its capability to handle complex engineering structural systems, extensive material modeling options, and excellent customizability and extensibility, this study utilizes Abaqus for detailed numerical simulations," has been highlighted in red font in Section 3.1.
6.Conclusion should be with the presentation of the scope for future research:
The conclusion section now includes a presentation of the scope for future research. The added content, which reads, "Future research will encompass lateral test verification, a broader parameter range, various load types, and the effects of connection contact between different modules," has been highlighted in red font at the end of the conclusions.
7.Add a section “List of symbols”:
Due to space constraints, it is not possible to provide a List of Symbols. We have confirmed that all symbols used in this paper are adequately explained within the text.
8.Reference format need to be corrected as per Sustainability journal format:
The reference format has been corrected to align with the Sustainability journal's format.
9.The citation format within the main text is not as per the Sustainability journal format:
The citation format within the main text has been adjusted to comply with the Sustainability journal's format.
Attached to this letter is the revised article based on your comments. Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to you!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for the opportunity to review.
The evaluation of corrugated steel-concrete reinforcement for use in underground spaces is certainly interesting. I am not sure of the focus for this journal, but that is for the editor to evaluate.
The proposed system is interesting in terms of sustainability of construction and simplicity of design - negating some of the disadvantages of conventional supports.
About the article:
The title is long, but appropriate to the problem.
You have an interestingly conceived introductory chapter, From the point of view of the focus of the journal, this is understandable.
I recommend other numerical abstractions for state-of-the-art, e.g:
10.12989/scs.2022.45.5.715
10.3390/ma14216573
Due to an error in the references, I cannot evaluate some connections with other texts.
There is a question as to what is new in the system, since the authors themselves refer to many of their previous papers of a similar nature.
Chapter 2 contains a description of the system, but it is not clear in what ways it is new, since the system is known for other applications.
Chapter 3 describes the model in detail, but some of the simplifications are, in my opinion, too far on the safe side.
I'm just guessing that you used Abaqus - it's not clear from the text and it's not clear where the analytical and numerical approach is used.
Most of the figures and graphs are missing units!
There are errors in the article with references "Error! Reference source not found" in several places.
There are language errors in the article.
The article needs a thorough check.
The format of the references is not correct.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully studied your suggestions and made revisions to each of them. The changes are as follows:
1.I recommend other numerical abstractions for state-of-the-art, e.g:
10.12989/scs.2022.45.5.715
10.3390/ma14216573:
The suggested references have been considered and incorporated where relevant to enhance the state-of-the-art discussion.
2.Due to an error in the references, I cannot evaluate some connections with other texts:
The "Error! Reference source not found" errors in the references have been rectified.
3.There is a question as to what is new in the system, since the authors themselves refer to many of their previous papers of a similar nature:
The primary innovation of this paper lies in the proposal of a novel assembly structure consisting of concrete and corrugated steel belly plates, designed for use in underground tunnels and similar engineering projects. The paper also focuses on the lateral loading conditions of this new structure, establishing a sophisticated numerical model and conducting several parameter analyses. Furthermore, the paper introduces theoretical models and simplified design formulas to facilitate engineering design. The lateral loading conditions primarily correspond to real-world scenarios in tunnel and pipeline construction, in contrast to the previously considered vertical loading conditions associated with excavation support scenarios.
4.Chapter 2 contains a description of the system, but it is not clear in what ways it is new, since the system is known for other applications:
The primary innovation of this structural form is the novel assembly of concrete and corrugated steel belly plates to create a composite structure. This prefabricated structural approach represents a novel application in the field of tunnel construction.
5.Chapter 3 describes the model in detail, but some of the simplifications are, in my opinion, too far on the safe side:
The interface has been considered under frictionless unfavorable conditions and validated for safety. Additionally, theoretical analysis has been conducted to support the overall and preliminary design. Further research will focus on additional working conditions and different load forms, which will be explored in future studies. Detailed calculations for various conditions will also be required once the initial design of practical engineering projects is completed. The numerical model proposed in this paper can serve as a valuable tool and reference for these purposes.
6.I'm just guessing that you used Abaqus - it's not clear from the text and it's not clear where the analytical and numerical approach is used:
Yes, this study utilized Abaqus for numerical simulations. An explanation of the numerical simulation software used in the paper has been provided in Section 3.1. The modifications have been highlighted in red font.
7.Most of the figures and graphs are missing units:
A detailed inspection of all the charts and graphs has been conducted. Furthermore, the necessary units have been added to Figures 5, 8, 9, and 10.
8.There are language errors in the article:
Language errors in the article have been thoroughly reviewed and corrected.
9.The format of the references is not correct:
The reference format has been adjusted to comply with the correct journal format.
The manuscript has undergone a thorough check, and these revisions have been made to address the mentioned issues. We appreciate your feedback and hope the changes have improved the overall quality of the article.
Attached to this letter is the revised article based on your comments. Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to you!
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is devoted to an urgent topic. But before publication, a number of improvements should be made.
1. You are talking about the possibility of using the technology under consideration for metro tunnels. But at the same time, in the description you do not compare this technology with traditional metro tunnel lining technologies. Such a comparison should be added.
2. In the introduction, you do not consider the economic side of the issue. You should also add information about how cost-effective your technology is.
3. In the review part, you can also mention the use of geopolymer concretes as a way of ecological (using waste) production of tunnel lining:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16093494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.01.006
4. The introduction section should end with the purpose of the work and possibly write the research objectives.
5. References must be issued according to the requirements of the journal. Also, you often have errors instead of links in the pdf file. Need to fix.
6. In the methodology section, you should describe in more detail the technology for manufacturing segments. Give the composition of the cement used, list the equipment used. Describe the software used and the initial conditions of the simulation.
7. In figure 4 it would be good to show the cross section of the ring.
8. You change several parameters at once (w (mm), hs (mm), ts (mm), hc (mm)). In Figure 12 you show the dependencies of the load on them. But you should indicate in the caption which values of the other variables not reflected in the graph were used. The confidence level should also be given on these graphs.
9. In Figure 11, you don't have a dimension for one of the axes.
10. You should refine your findings. It is necessary to reflect in the conclusions only those results that you received. You write that this technology can increase the speed of production. But you didn't explore it in the article. Write down the results you got. Also give specific values. Remove the list of completed work. Give the results.
11. In general, the work is more suitable for the Materials magazine. You should strengthen the direction of stability. Compare your results with the results of standard technologies (literature data) and show that the stability of structures created using your technology is higher. Reflect this in your conclusions.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. We have carefully considered each of your points and have made the following revisions and responses:
1.You are talking about the possibility of using the technology under consideration for metro tunnels. But at the same time, in the description you do not compare this technology with traditional metro tunnel lining technologies. Such a comparison should be added.
This paper compares the proposed novel structure with traditional shotcrete reinforcement techniques. In contrast to shotcrete technology, the presented structure offers the advantage of enhanced environmental safety, as elaborated upon in the paper
2.In the introduction, you do not consider the economic side of the issue. You should also add information about how cost-effective your technology is.
We have now included a discussion on the economic benefits in the final paragraph of the introduction. The added content is as follows and has been highlighted in red font:
“Moreover, it's essential to emphasize the broader socio-economic benefits of this innova-tive approach. By offering enhanced environmental sustainability and safety, the Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure not only contributes to a more responsible and secure underground construction industry but also carries significant economic advantages. These benefits can include reduced maintenance and repair costs, faster project completion times, and improved resource utilization.”
3.In the review part, you can also mention the use of geopolymer concretes as a way of ecological (using waste) production of tunnel lining:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16093494
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.01.006
We have included references to studies on the use of geopolymer concretes for ecological tunnel lining production in the review section, as suggested.
4.The introduction section should end with the purpose of the work and possibly write the research objectives.
In the final paragraph of the introduction, we have added the research objectives. The revised content is as follows and has been highlighted in red font:
“The objective of this study is to investigate the lateral load-bearing performance of the Corrugated Steel Concrete Prefabricated Support Structure, establish numerical and theoretical models, and propose design methods for engineering reference.”
5.References must be issued according to the requirements of the journal. Also, you often have errors instead of links in the pdf file. Need to fix.
References have been formatted according to the journal's requirements, and the link errors in the PDF file have been corrected.
6.In the methodology section, you should describe in more detail the technology for manufacturing segments. Give the composition of the cement used, list the equipment used. Describe the software used and the initial conditions of the simulation.
In the methodology section, there was no coverage of material manufacturing-related technical issues. Additional information regarding the simulation is provided below:
The interface has been considered under frictionless unfavorable conditions and validated for safety. Additionally, theoretical analysis has been conducted to support the overall and preliminary design. Further research will focus on additional working conditions and different load forms, which will be explored in future studies. Detailed calculations for various conditions will also be required once the initial design of practical engineering projects is completed. The numerical model proposed in this paper can serve as a valuable tool and reference for these purposes.
7.In Figure 4 it would be good to show the cross section of the ring.
The cross-section of the ring in Figure 4 is as shown in Figure 2. This has been explained in the article.
8.You change several parameters at once (w (mm), hs (mm), ts (mm), hc (mm)). In Figure 12 you show the dependencies of the load on them. But you should indicate in the caption which values of the other variables not reflected in the graph were used. The confidence level should also be given on these graphs.
The numbering of Figure 12 has been updated to Figure 11. This figure displays the results obtained by varying parameters w (mm), hs (mm), ts (mm), and hc (mm) individually, following the values from Table 1. The variations strictly involve changing a single variable at a time. A detailed explanation of this is provided in Section 5 of the article.
9.In Figure 11, you don't have a dimension for one of the axes.
The numbering of Figure 11 has been updated to Figure 10. This figure has been modified, and units have been added to the vertical axis.
10.You should refine your findings. It is necessary to reflect in the conclusions only those results that you received. You write that this technology can increase the speed of production. But you didn't explore it in the article. Write down the results you got. Also give specific values. Remove the list of completed work. Give the results.
The conclusions have been revised to focus on the specific results obtained from the study, including numerical values. The list of completed work has been removed. The modifications in the conclusion have been highlighted in red font.
11.In general, the work is more suitable for the Materials magazine. You should strengthen the direction of stability. Compare your results with the results of standard technologies (literature data) and show that the stability of structures created using your technology is higher. Reflect this in your conclusions.
The article has cited standard techniques and discussed structural safety. In the conclusion, the following statement has been added: "The novel composite structure has high stability performance compared to previous steel structures, as the concrete provides effective out-of-plane support." This explains that the composite structure exhibits significantly higher stability than pure steel structures because the concrete and steel plates are effectively connected to form an integrated system, with concrete restraining the out-of-plane buckling deformation of the steel plates, thus providing lateral support.
We appreciate your thorough review, and these revisions aim to improve the paper's quality and alignment with the journal's requirements.
Attached to this letter is the revised article based on your comments. Once again, we would like to express our gratitude to you!
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The references were not found to be in order according to the original review.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback regarding the organization of references. We have reviewed and addressed this issue, and we are pleased to inform you that the references have been reorganized and are now in the correct order.
Your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you once again!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In general, the authors finalized the article and corrected it according to my comments.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and valuable comments. Your input has been instrumental in improving the quality of our work, and we are grateful for your assistance in this process. Thank you once again!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't want to comment anymore
