Next Article in Journal
Effect of Subsurface Drainage Combined with Biochar on the Bacterial Community Composition of Coastal Saline Soil
Next Article in Special Issue
Evolution of Water-Conducting Fracture in Weakly Cemented Strata in Response to Mining Activity: Insights from Experimental Investigation and Numerical Simulation
Previous Article in Journal
Improving the Performance of Hydrological Model Parameter Uncertainty Analysis Using a Constrained Multi-Objective Intelligent Optimization Algorithm
Previous Article in Special Issue
Precise Judgment of Reverse Fault-Induced Water Inrush Hazard under Influence of Roof Goaf Water
Peer-Review Record

Dynamic Parameter Calibration of an Analytical Model to Predict Transient Groundwater Inflow into a Tunnel

Water 2023, 15(15), 2702;
by Rui Zhu 1, Qiang Xia 1,*, Qiang Zhang 1, Cong Cao 2,3, Xiaoyu Zhang 4,5 and Bangyan Mao 6
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2023, 15(15), 2702;
Submission received: 23 June 2023 / Revised: 22 July 2023 / Accepted: 25 July 2023 / Published: 27 July 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of “Dynamic Parameter Calibration of an Analytical Model to Predict Transient Groundwater Inflow into a Tunnel”, by Rui Zhu, Qiang Xia1, Qiang Zhang and Cong Cao, Xiaoyu Zhang, Bangyan Mao


In this paper, a Dynamic Parameter Calibration (DPC) method to sequentially optimize parameters for a tunnel is developed based on a transient analytical model and the Trust Region Reflection (TRR) algorithm. Parameter sensitivity analysis proved that the hydraulic conductivity has a greater influence on groundwater inflow calculation than the specific storage coefficient S. In general, the structure of the paper is reasonable and the research design and implementation are appropriate.

In practice, it is seen that the fault zone and its influence zone have a great impact on the water ingress in the tunnel. Since the paper considers the influence of the fault, it is recommended to further explain and discuss the adaptability of the method proposed in this paper to the fault zone


Several special comments are:

1. What do the colors of the different shades of gray in Figure 1 represent?

2. The font of formula (2) is too large

3. There is a problem with the numbering of the formula, there are two (2), it is recommended to reorder them

4. It is recommended to add some explanations about the main content of the figure below the figure title

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled Dynamic Parameter Calibration of an Analytical Model to Predict Transient Groundwater Inflow into a Tunnel raises an interesting topic and concerns an interesting field of hydrogeological research. The article may be of potential interest to a wide range of readers of Water journal. However, at this stage it requires some corrections and adjustments. Some parts of the text require additional commentary and/or supplementation.

General comment:

It is not entirely clear to me whether this is a strictly methodical article or rather an advanced case study. In this context, it seems important to me to ask what is or can be a practical application of the approach proposed by the Authors. For example, what are the predictive capabilities of this approach? Or maybe the proposed approach only allows for quick (in real time?) determination of the filtration parameters of the aquifer based on the measurements of water inflows?

The novelty of this work should be clearly described and brightly presented by the Authors. It is also worth pointing out why this article may be useful to the international hydrological community

I also have substantive comments regarding the presented here concepts.

Detailed comments:

Line 80: „…Q value” – It’s unclear. What does it mean in context of this sentence?

Lines 84-85: „… that hydraulic conductivity K is more sensitive to water inflow compared to other parameters” -  Unclear wording. What does it actually mean? Please rephrase.

Line 88-89: “… showed that the variability of K value has more significant effect on the flow rate” – cause/effect, effect/cause.

Lines 73-75: It is worth adding here or elsewhere in the text that studies on the dynamics of groundwater flow conducted on a scale of several dozen meters (e.g. the inflow forced by the abstract of water) indicate that sometimes, even despite similar filtration parameters (K) of the aquifer, groundwater flows may be characterized by significant differences in terms of flow paths and flow characteristics of individual stream of water. (see e.g. or other similar articles).

Line 135: „…until a criterion is met” - What criterion?

Lines 144-145: “…R2 for the whole tunnel with all the sectors, while it is written as r2 for a few specified sectors.” – this formulation may confuse the reader because R is indeed the coefficient of determination, but r is most commonly referred to as the Pearson linear correlation coefficient. However, the squared Pearson correlation coefficient (r²)  is completely different from the coefficient of determination (R²), except in very specific cases of linear regression

Lines 284-285: “…this condition satisfies the prerequisite of Perrochet Equation” - ?? This passage is unclear and requires further and/or wider comment. The article should be fully understandable to the reader without the need to refer to external sources, even open access scientific publications available on the Internet.

Lines 294 (fig 7) and 313: „ … the soluble rock strata” - What does it actually mean? Do the Authors mean evaporites? But in that case, the term “soluble rock " is incorrect and not really used in this context. The description of the geological settings does not indicate the presence of rocks such as gypsum or halite.

Lines 341-343: I don't understand this argument. What does mean the term “sensitive” in context of this sentence. 

Lines 353-354: I appreciate the critical approach of the Authors to the results of their own research, but this sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. What did the Authors really want to convey here?

Lines 358-360: Unclear wording/style. What does it actually mean? Please rephrase.


no comment

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

At the outset, I would like to say that I appreciate the effort put in by the Authors to improve this manuscript. At the same time, I am glad that my comments helped the Authors to improve this interesting article. I have no further comments, good luck with your further research.

 I have no further comments.

Back to TopTop