Safety Evaluation of Plain Concrete Lining Considering Deterioration and Aerodynamic Effects
, Yi Wang 1,*, Junfu Fu 4,*, Yanxing Yang 5, Wenge Qiu 2, Yawen Jing 2, Manlin Jiang 2 and Huayun Li 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) The last sentence in the abstract is recommended to be removed as it is just a self statement instead of an objective description.
2) In the introduction, some literature review in railway engineering is desired to be compensated as follows:
[1] Zhai, W. (2020). Vehicle–Track Coupled Dynamics. In Vehicle–Track Coupled Dynamics. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9283-3
[2] Fuchuan Duan, et al. (2023). Study on Aerodynamic Instability and Galloping Response of Rail Overhead Contact Line Based on Wind Tunnel Tests. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2023.3243024
[3] Song, Y., et al. (2021). A spatial coupling model to study dynamic performance of pantograph-catenary with vehicle-track excitation. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 151, 107336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107336
3) It seems to be that the statement in the introduction is not completely correct ‘… defects mainly focuses on the impact of short-term single factors,…’. Actually, some works about the long-term impact has been performed. Please claim the novelty of this paper correctly.
4) Is it really necessary to give so much information about the overview of the tunnel? Please consider shortening.
5) The biggest doubt about this work is whether the numerical model has been validated or not? The accuracy of the numerical simulation is the premise to perform the safety evaluation. Please comment on this issue.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- In Figure 2, vertical axis should have title and unit (I think it indicate elevation in meter).
- It is better to indicate figures of the secondary lining that has "three-leg grid steel frame" and "single-layer anti-crack reinforcement mesh".
- In Section 3.1, it was stated that "The lining structure is simulated by the beam element". Is it logical to simulate lining as a beam? I think lining can be simulated as a plate or shell.
- Results obtained from the numerical model developed in ANSYS should be validated.
- In Section 4.3, the interaction between the surrounding rock and lining was simulated using spring element. On the other hand, The rock loads were applied to the beam elements (lining). I do not agree to model rock in this manner. I think surrounding rock should be modeled explicitly and by use of contact between lining and rock and considering weight of rock, all aspect of rock can be taken into account.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has a relatively acceptable flow and structure overall. It also seems to have an interesting topic for the readers; however, there are a number of issues throughout the entire manuscript that need to be fixed. The following points are the most significant issues that this reviewer recommends the authors to consider for enhancing the quality and writing of the manuscript:
The authors may think about using a shorter title which at the same time incorporates their research’s dimensions and context.
The introduction section is very lengthy. The authors may divide it into two sections, i.e., introduction and literature review.
The authors should further emphasize the novelty of their research by making pair-wise comparisons with similar studies to prove their contribution to the body of knowledge.
The authors may need to elaborate the details of the load-structure method they used in section 3.1 with respect to tunnel loads.
This reviewer cannot find sufficient information on the details of parameters used in section 4.2.
The authors may need to provide justifications for the methods they used for short-term safety evaluation in Section 5.
The authors may need to further mention the limitations of their study in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments have been well addressed in the revised paper. I recommend the publication of this paper with the current version.
