Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

REVIEW COMMENTS

 

Evolution pattern and matching mode of precursor information 2 about water inrush in a karst tunnel (Water-1189650)

Jie Song, Diyang Chen, Jing Wang, Yufeng Bi, Shang Liu, Guoqiang Zhong and Chao Wang

In this manuscript, the authors have studies the evolution pattern and matching mode of precursor information about inrush in a karst tunnel. The authors evaluated the evolution pattern of precursor water inrush information in water-filled caves and to further reveal the matching mode of the information using numerical analysis. I think it would be a lot of work for the study. Moreover, this paper could help researchers who would like to make a study of numerical simulation of water inrush in karst area with field scale test.

 

I recommend that Make sure and address the following issues in the revised manuscript.

 

1) The introduction should state clearly what is novel / original in this work and how it may be applied to evaluate evolution pattern and matching in karst area.

 

2) This manuscript is not well organized and it is advised to be arranged in a clear way.

 

3) Introduction part is too short. Involve the why we study about karst area for your purpose.

 

3)Figure quality: the quality of figure is too bad. I cannot recognized. Remake the figure 3, 5, and 8. Also most figures axis title is too small such as figure 11, 12, 13 and 14.

 

 

Author Response

Point 1: The introduction should state clearly what is novel / original in this work and how it may be applied to evaluate evolution pattern and matching in karst area.

 Response 1: The introduction has been supplemented and the innovation of this study has been supplemented

Point 2: This manuscript is not well organized and it is advised to be arranged in a clear way

 Response 2: It has been adjusted according to the opinions of reviewers

 

Point 3:  Introduction part is too short. Involve the why we study about karst area for your purpose.

Response 3: The introduction has been supplemented

Point 4: Figure quality: the quality of figure is too bad. I cannot recognized. Remake the figure 3, 5, and 8. Also most figures axis title is too small such as figure 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Response 4: figure 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 have been redrawn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of interest of this paper is the water inrush during tunnel excavation in karst. The inrush is simulated and analyzed by the three-dimensional numerical model – FLAC3D. The existing ANSYS finite element software is used in this process, which means that there is not any methodological originality. Although the thematic is interesting, this paper has serious presentational issues that should be corrected, and manuscript reformulated completely to enable a proper evaluation of the work. Introduction contains only a short review of the current state of the research field and key publications. There is nothing about the purpose of work, used methods, broad context, and contribution. The section 2 contains a detail presentation of a previously published study without any discussion. There are figures without any comments or explanations in text (e.g., Figures 1 and 2). Figure 3 is too small and unreadable. Figure 4 contains two figures that are not numerated and not adequately commented. What does present left figure? A scale is missing also. Figure 6 should contain x, y, and z axis, as well as a legend (meaning of red and blue colors). Figure captions are not informative. There is no materials and methods section or a clear presentation of available data and used methods including presumptions, advantages, disadvantages, or general reliability (e.g., FLAC3D has no reference). There is no discussion section, and the obtained results are not interpreted in perspective of previous studies. Findings and their implications are not discussed (e.g., the so called “matching mode of the precursor information of water inrush” is only described in conclusions without any “physical” explanation).

Author Response

Point 1: Introduction contains only a short review of the current state of the research field and key publications. There is nothing about the purpose of work, used methods, broad context, and contribution.

 Response 1: The introduction has been rewritten, and the purpose of the work, the method of use, a wide range of background and contributions have been added

Point 2: There are figures without any comments or explanations in text (e.g., Figures 1 and 2). Figure 3 is too small and unreadable. Figure 4 contains two figures that are not numerated and not adequately commented. What does present left figure? A scale is missing also. Figure 6 should contain x, y, and z axis, as well as a legend (meaning of red and blue colors). Figure captions are not informative.

 Response 2: The drawings have been modified as required

Point 3: There is no discussion section, and the obtained results are not interpreted in perspective of previous studies. Findings and their implications are not discussed

Response 3: The discussion section has been added

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As I mentioned in first round review comments, author have to improve the figure quality.

However, I cannot recognized your figures in revised manuscript.

Please, Redraw!!!

 

Author Response

Point 1: As I mentioned in first round review comments, author have to improve the figure quality.However, I cannot recognized your figures in revised manuscript.

Response 1: The picture has been redrawn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment.

Author Response

Thank the experts for their valuable opinions

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

There are Chinese character in the figure 9.

 

Author Response

Point 1: There are Chinese character in the figure 9.

Response 1: The figure 9 has been redrawn

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no comments.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments