Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment of Metro Tunnels in Soft Soils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The theoretical model of the paper is detailed and reliable.The paper provides sufficient data support and calculation of engineering application . It is a high-quality paper.The research method of the paper is relatively simple, and numerical simulation or field experiments can be added to compare and verify with the theoretical model.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment

I have received your manuscript “Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment of Metro Tunnels in Soft Soils”. Your study presents a framework for assessment of seismic risk in tunnels. It has high engineering application value. However, some parts still need to be perfected. We will accept your manuscript with minor revision.

1.    In Equation (2), how is the value of parameter P_k got?

2.    In section 3.4, you mention that the seismic risk assessment of a tunnel section in the metro system is conducted using the approach you come up with. Please introduce the basic situation of the tunnel section. You'd better make a table of the values of the relevant calculation parameters and show the calculation process of the risk assessment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see my comments in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is very well structured and has high scientific quality while investigating the "Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment of Metro Tunnels in Soft Soils".  The following comments are suggested to improve this interesting work. 

- In the Abstract and Introduction, the english language needs some improvements to be more fluent and "natural".

- The whole paper focuses mainly on the probabilistic risk.  There is a lack of the model presentation (what is actually analysed) and a great lack of soil properties.  The model properties are not obvious. The way of SSI consideration is not presented clearly.  Also, a comparison of the soft soil effect to the rigid soil assumption is missing. 

- More explanations should be added about how the evaluation of the damage of the elements is performed to form all these graphs (software, methods etc.)

- The "conclusions" should present some practical findings of this work and emphasize the novelty of this paper.  How a practical engineer can use all this work?

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good in general.  Please, the Abstract and Introduction should be improved to be more fluent and "natural". 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered the questions of the reviewer, so this paper can be published. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive comments which give me great encouragement!