The Effect of Distance between Jet Fans on Gas Transport, Energy Conservation, and Emission Reduction in Long Highway Tunnels
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery interesting, but the Reviewer has a few comments:
- in this paper, the Reviewer cannot find any novelty. Please improve it.
-you analyzed research based on the Baima Highway Tunnel in Sichuan. Thus, please explain what impact your research has on other tunnels made of other materials/properties/purpose
-in the discussion, please compare your results with other results from literature (not only Chinese researchers)
-What is the next step in your research?
-The conclusions are simple and nothing new,
-please add a few papers from the whole World,
-Please add more details from your experiment. In the current version of this paper, the Reviewer cannot validate your research and your numerical model.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIn my opinion, language should be improved by Native Speakers. The current version is very poor and not acceptable. This is a scientific paper, not a newspaper ad.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Specific modification instructions can be found in the attachment.
Yours sincerely,
Liang Suo et al.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary:
This research focuses on understanding the impact of jet fan spacing on gas transport dynamics during the construction of long highway tunnels. It examines a tunnel in Sichuan, China, as a case study and develops a numerical model of tunnel ventilation using Fluent simulation software. The results indicate that as the jet fan spacing increases (200 m, 400 m, 600 m, and 800 m), the gas concentration at the tunnel face initially decreases and then increases. Analysis of the gas distribution cloud map and the wind flow line diagram reveals that the optimal ventilation system performance is achieved with a jet fan spacing of 600 m. This configuration ensures that the gas concentration at the tunnel face remains below 0.5% and that the minimum wind speed exceeds 0.25 m/s.
The technical English used in this paper requires substantial improvement, particularly in terms of syntax, appropriate selection of technical vocabulary, and clarity in the presentation of ideas. Additionally, a thorough revision of the text is necessary to eliminate the evident repetition of ideas throughout the document. The structure of the narrative is appropriately organized, a historical and evolutive analysis of tunnel ventilation and physical model proposals are presented. A precise contextualization of the state of the art, and a coherent presentation of analysis steps guide the reader to the analysis execution and proposed conclusions.
However, several significant findings have been identified. To accurately address the most critical ones, the following bullet points highlight potential areas for improvement:
0. The literature review could be improved by adding some references concerning the latest developments in the field of tunnelling analysis. For prestigious journal like Sustainability, the number of the references should be at least 40. Please take inspiration from the following references:
· Domaneschi, M. et al. (2024). A probabilistic framework for the resilience assessment of transport infrastructure systems via structural health monitoring and control based on a cost function approach. Structure and infrastructure engineering, 1-13.
· Rosso, M. M. et al. (2022). Review on deep learning in structural health monitoring. In Bridge Safety, Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle, Resilience and Sustainability (pp. 309-315). CRC Press.
1. In line 17 on page 1, the term “long gas tunnels” is introduced. According to this reviewer, this terminology is inappropriate for describing gas evacuation dynamics within long highway tunnels.
2. In line 20 on page 1, the term “engineering background” is not the most accurate way to refer to a case study or real-world example. A better selection of technical vocabulary is necessary.
3. The abstract contains a repetition of ideas between lines 25 to 27 and lines 27 to 29.
4. A typographical error in the word "construction" as "construvtion" is observed in line 43 on page 1.
5. In subsection 2.1, “Overview of the Tunnel Route,” a more precise and detailed description of the case study is required. The inclusion of technical drawings, legends, or a convention table could enhance the understanding of subsequent sections, such as the modeling steps. Additionally, in lines 126 and 127 of this section, clarification of a concept is necessary, as the technical vocabulary used (e.g., "maximum design burial depth") is not the most accurate.
6. On page 5, Figure 1, the layout of the graph is unclear. It is suggested to improve the representation of the elements to make it more understandable.
7. Figure 11 is unclear. The spacing alternatives are not well labeled on the axis, and the values and units are absent.
Finally, and most importantly, a clearer explanation is needed in the experimental methods section on why the number of jet fans decreases as the spacing increases. This criterion is crucial, as it does not align with previous “working conditions.” It is recommended to develop a broader range of “working conditions” to evaluate the reduction of jet fans alongside changes in allocation distance. Employing optimization methods, such as evolutionary algorithms or artificial intelligence, to find the optimal solution could significantly enhance the quality of this research.
With a deep and thorough clarification of major revision suggested by the reviewer, the intended scope of the investigations might be, in the concept of the reviewer, successfully achieved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe technical English used in this paper requires substantial improvement, particularly in terms of syntax, appropriate selection of technical vocabulary, and clarity in the presentation of ideas.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Specific modification instructions can be found in the attachment.
Yours sincerely,
Liang Suo et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Specific modification instructions can be found in the attachment.
Yours sincerely,
Liang Suo et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your improvement. The Reviewer still does not see any novelty in the introduction. Please explain what is new or the most interesting in your paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Specific modification instructions can be found in the attachment.
Yours sincerely,
Liang Suo et al.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
all the doubts raised by the reviewer have been fixed.
The manuscript is eligible for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your feedback has been very helpful for the publication of our article, and we would like to express our gratitude to you once again.
Yours sincerely,
Liang Suo et al.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your improvement.
