Model Test Study on the Response of Two Different Shallow-Foundation Framed Buildings under Tunnel Volume Loss
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have submitted the paper presenting results of a valuable experimental study of soil-structure interaction of buildings during shallow tunnel excavation on a 1g physical model. The investigation is clearly described and results well presented and discussed. At some points the improvements are possible, which are listed below:
1) Figure 2: What is presented at the right-most sketch of both models (dimensions 12.5x12.5 mm and 5x12.5 mm)?
2) Figure 2: The relative position of foundations and tunel axis should be presented especially for strip foundation case.
3) The span of building frame is the same as the tunel diameter. This fact has to be mentioned in the paper as the detailed results are only valid for such case and may be different for other geometries.
4) Section 2.2: Justify the selection of similarity ratio of 1:16.6 for elasticity modulus. How does this affect the axial and bending stiffness of structural elements?
5) Section 2.3: Please describe the test pocedure. After the model had been set-up, probably all three values of volume loss were applied stepwise on the same physical model. What was the time steps between each application of volume loss? What was the time difference between the volume loss application and reading the results?
6) Equation (1): Quantity "epsilon_x,b" is denoted as "delta_b" in Figure 8. Consider using the same notation.
7) Section 3.2.3: Two different terms are used for the same quantity: "reflection ratio" and "deflection ratio".
The language is fairly good and can be easily understood with some exceptions. I would recommend english editing. Below are some examples that have to be improved:
1) Line 68: "A self-developed laboratory model test system developed ..."
2) Line 130: "... corresponded to from ..."
3) Line137: "... displacement contours under isolated footings corresponding to e=1D is shown ...". ("is" should be replaced by "are".)
4) Check and revise all the sentences beginning with "And", "While", "Whereas".
5) Line 222: "... which is consistent with ...".
6) Lines 260-261: "... the structure remains in the hogging mode..."
7) Line 261: "... and the deflection ratio increases firstly and then decreases."
8) Line 275: " ... was medaretely damaged ..."
9) Lines 332-334: The sentence can not be understood.
10) Line 336: "... technique were adopted to ..."
11) Line 393: "... for verification of this study."
12) Lines 412-414: The sentence can not be understood.
13) Line 415: "... reached the most severe values/state when ...". Something is missing between words "severe" and "when".
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and for the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Model test study on the response of two different shallow foundation framed buildings under tunnel volume loss” (ISSN 2075-5309). 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. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewer’s comments are as flowing：
For the first reviewer:
The authors have submitted the paper presenting results of a valuable experimental study of soil-structure interaction of buildings during shallow tunnel excavation on a 1g physical model. The investigation is clearly described and results well presented and discussed. At some points the improvements are possible, which are listed below:
Response: Thank you for your approval of our work.
1. Figure 2: What is presented at the right-most sketch of both models (dimensions 12.5x12.5 mm and 5x12.5 mm)?
Response: Sorry for missing the illustration of right-most sketch. The upper sketch (dimensions 12.5x12.5 mm) is the column section, and the lower sketch (dimensions 5x12.5 mm) is the beam section. And we have added the illustration in Figure 2.
2. Figure 2: The relative position of foundations and tunel axis should be presented especially for strip foundation case.
Response: The relative position of foundations and tunnel axis has been presented in Figure 4. And the centrelines of both foundations are added in Figure 2. Thanks for the suggestion.
3. The span of the building frame is the same as the tunnel diameter. This fact has to be mentioned in the paper as the detailed results are only valid for such case and may be different for other geometries.
Response: Yes and we have added the information on line 69.
4. Section 2.2: Justify the selection of similarity ratio of 1:16.6 for elasticity modulus. How does this affect the axial and bending stiffness of structural elements?
Response: The inter-story load in the actual buildings is taken as 8 kN/m2, which is applied in the form of loading box. Since the inter-story load and the elasticity modulus share the same dimension, the similarity ratio of load is also set to 1:16.6.
5. Section 2.3: Please describe the test pocedure. After the model had been set-up, probably all three values of volume loss were applied stepwise on the same physical model. What was the time steps between each application of volume loss? What was the time difference between the volume loss application and reading the results?
Response: The instantaneous volume loss is mainly considered in the sand formation, and the tunnel volume loss is mainly controlled by the volume of drainage. The corresponding water volume of Vl=1.5% is initially extracted, followed by a two-minute interval, during which the extraction continues with the corresponding water volume of Vl =2.4%, and finally reaches Vl =3.4%. Data acquisition is done in real time by CCD camera, so the volume loss application and results reading are done almost simultaneously. We have revised it on line 131-134.
6. Equation (1): Quantity "epsilon_x,b" is denoted as "delta_b" in Figure 8. Consider using the same notation.
Response: Thank you and we have revised it, on line 206.
7.Section 3.2.3: Two different terms are used for the same quantity: "reflection ratio" and "deflection ratio".
Response: We have revised them on line 244, 249.
8. The language is fairly good and can be easily understood with some exceptions. I would recommend english editing. Below are some examples that have to be improved:
1) Line 68: "A self-developed laboratory model test system developed ..."
2) Line 130: "... corresponded to from ..."
3) Line137: "... displacement contours under isolated footings corresponding to e=1D is shown ...". ("is" should be replaced by "are".)
4) Check and revise all the sentences beginning with "And", "While", "Whereas".
5) Line 222: "... which is consistent with ...".
6) Lines 260-261: "... the structure remains in the hogging mode..."
7) Line 261: "... and the deflection ratio increases firstly and then decreases."
8) Line 275: " ... was medaretely damaged ..."
9) Lines 332-334: The sentence can not be understood.
10) Line 336: "... technique were adopted to ..."
11) Line 393: "... for verification of this study."
12) Lines 412-414: The sentence can not be understood.
13) Line 415: "... reached the most severe values/state when ...". Something is missing between words "severe" and "when".
Response: We have revised the manuscript based on your recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting paper I general, however, the authors should follow the following comments:
1. In introduction, the problem of study should be clearly stated. To do this, maybe reviewing more studies can be useful. I am suggesting the following studies to review:
- Control of pile movements induced by tunnelling using micropiles
- Investigation of Uplift Capacity of Deep Foundation in Various Geometry Conditions
- A review on tunnel–pile interaction applied by physical modeling
- Deformation model of sand around short piles under pullout test
2. Please rephrase the following sentence.
caused by ground movement, it is necessary to investigate the deformation characteristics
of structure and formation and the soil-structure interaction
3. Please rewrite the following sentence:
the relationship between the maximum ground settlement and the relative density of soil by proposing an empirical formula, of which the application conditions are subject to further discussion.
4. Please recheck meaning of the following sentence:
It can be conducted that the interaction between soil and foundation must….
5. Some of the figures are poor in terms of quality like Figures 3, 5, 13 and 14.
6. Please cite some studies for the following claim:
The tunnel model is made of PVC pipe with a diameter (D) of 15 cm, corresponding to a tunnel with an internal diameter of 6 m in the actual project.
7. What do you mean by deformation details in the following sentence? Please clarify
However, due to the limitations of the space inside the centrifuge and the operating environment, some deformation details are difficult to show completely
8. How did you consider scale effects in your small scale modelling.?
9. What are the difficulties and limitations of this study? In addition, the future direction of this area should be stated. I suggest to provide them in a separate section.
This is an interesting paper I general, however, the authors should follow the following comments:
1. In introduction, the problem of study should be clearly stated. To do this, maybe reviewing more studies can be useful. I am suggesting the following studies to review:
- Control of pile movements induced by tunnelling using micropiles
- Investigation of Uplift Capacity of Deep Foundation in Various Geometry Conditions
- A review on tunnel–pile interaction applied by physical modeling
- Deformation model of sand around short piles under pullout test
2. Please rephrase the following sentence.
caused by ground movement, it is necessary to investigate the deformation characteristics
of structure and formation and the soil-structure interaction
3. Please rewrite the following sentence:
the relationship between the maximum ground settlement and the relative density of soil by proposing an empirical formula, of which the application conditions are subject to further discussion.
4. Please recheck meaning of the following sentence:
It can be conducted that the interaction between soil and foundation must….
5. Some of the figures are poor in terms of quality like Figures 3, 5, 13 and 14.
6. Please cite some studies for the following claim:
The tunnel model is made of PVC pipe with a diameter (D) of 15 cm, corresponding to a tunnel with an internal diameter of 6 m in the actual project.
7. What do you mean by deformation details in the following sentence? Please clarify
However, due to the limitations of the space inside the centrifuge and the operating environment, some deformation details are difficult to show completely
8. How did you consider scale effects in your small scale modelling.?
9. What are the difficulties and limitations of this study? In addition, the future direction of this area should be stated. I suggest to provide them in a separate section.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and for the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Model test study on the response of two different shallow foundation framed buildings under tunnel volume loss” (ISSN 2075-5309). 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. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewer’s comments are as flowing：
For the first reviewer:
The authors have submitted the paper presenting results of a valuable experimental study of soil-structure interaction of buildings during shallow tunnel excavation on a 1g physical model. The investigation is clearly described and results well presented and discussed. At some points the improvements are possible, which are listed below:
Response: Thank you for your approval of our work.
For the second reviewer:
This is an interesting paper I general, however, the authors should follow the following comments:
Response: Thank you for your approval of our work.
- In introduction, the problem of study should be clearly stated. To do this, maybe reviewing more studies can be useful. I am suggesting the following studies to review:
- Control of pile movements induced by tunnelling using micropiles
- Investigation of Uplift Capacity of Deep Foundation in Various Geometry Conditions
- A review on tunnel–pile interaction applied by physical modeling
- Deformation model of sand around short piles under pullout test
Response: Thank you, we would like to review these studies and cite the key literature one line 59:
A review on tunnel–pile interaction applied by physical modeling
- Please rephrase the following sentence. caused by ground movement, it is necessary to investigate the deformation characteristics of structure and formation and the soil-structure interaction
Response: We have revised this sentence on line 36-38.
- Please rewrite the following sentence: the relationship between the maximum ground settlement and the relative density of soil by proposing an empirical formula, of which the application conditions are subject to further discussion.
Response: We have revised this sentence on line 42-45.
- Please recheck meaning of the following sentence:
It can be conducted that the interaction between soil and foundation must….
Response: We have revised this sentence on line 46-47.
- Some of the figures are poor in terms of quality like Figures 3, 5, 13 and 14.
Response: We adjusted the size and pixels of these figures.
- Please cite some studies for the following claim:
The tunnel model is made of PVC pipe with a diameter (D) of 15 cm, corresponding to a tunnel with an internal diameter of 6 m in the actual project.
Response: We have cited the reference 14-15.
Sohaei, H., Namazi, E., Hajihassani, M., Marto, A. A review on tunnel–pile interaction applied by physical modeling. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2020. 38(4), 3341-3362.
Wang, T., Wang, R., Xue, F., Tang, N. Experimental Investigation on the Effect of Volume Loss on Ground Movements Induced by Tunnelling in Sand. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.2023. 27(1), 122-134.
- What do you mean by deformation details in the following sentence? Please clarify
However, due to the limitations of the space inside the centrifuge and the operating environment, some deformation details are difficult to show completely
Response: We have revised the sentence on line 361-363.
- How did you consider scale effects in your small scale modelling.?
Response: Model similarity. The inter-story load in the actual buildings is taken as 8 kN/m2, which is applied in the form of loading box. Since the inter-story load and the elasticity modulus share the same dimension, the similarity ratio of load is also set to 1:16.6. In addition, the distance between adjacent columns along the length of the frame is 150 mm, and the distance between columns in the width direction is 120 mm, so the mass of a single loading box is 0.15m×0.12m× 8000N/m2/16.6/10N/kg=0.9kg. The parameters of deformation can satisfy the similarity theory, which are shown in Table 2.
- What are the difficulties and limitations of this study? In addition, the future direction of this area should be stated. I suggest to provide them in a separate section.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a corresponding section in the discussion part.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of the present manuscript studied and experimentally verified the effect of tunnel volume loss on adjacent framed buildings for two types of shallow foundations under different working conditions based. They used the digital image correlation (DIC) technique. These were frame structures placed on insulated foundations and foundation strips. The main finding was that foundation strops are more advantageous compared to insulated foundations.
The results of the research have a reference value for assessing the influence of adjacent frame buildings with a shallow foundation in the construction of the subway tunnel.
It would be interesting to make measurements in situ.
I have no comments on the manuscript.
However, I recommend correcting figure 7.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and for the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Model test study on the response of two different shallow foundation framed buildings under tunnel volume loss” (ISSN 2075-5309). 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. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the Reviewer’s comments are as flowing：
For the third reviewer:
The authors of the present manuscript studied and experimentally verified the effect of tunnel volume loss on adjacent framed buildings for two types of shallow foundations under different working conditions based. They used the digital image correlation (DIC) technique. These were frame structures placed on insulated foundations and foundation strips. The main finding was that foundation strops are more advantageous compared to insulated foundations.
Response: Thank you for your approval of our work.
1.The results of the research have a reference value for assessing the influence of adjacent frame buildings with a shallow foundation in the construction of the subway tunnel.
Response: Thank you for your approval of our work.
- It would be interesting to make measurements in situ. I have no comments on the manuscript. However, I recommend correcting figure 7.
Response: Yes, it would be interesting to make measurements in situ and we would like to conduct further research. We have corrected Figure 7.
We appreciate for Editors and Reviews’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Thank you and best regards.
Yours,
Yang
