Dynamic Prediction of Longitudinal Settlement of Existing Tunnel Using ConvRes-DLinear Model with Integration of Undercrossing Construction Process Information
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of this manuscript is Dynamic Prediction of Longitudinal Settlement of Existing Tunnel using ConvRes-DLinear Model with Integration of Undercrossing Construction Process Information. The author improves DLinear to ConvRes-DLinear by adding residual blocks and convolutional layers and achieves good results in subsequent model validation.In addition, the author conducts an analysis of the optimal time step of the improved model. The research presented in the manuscript is original, contemporary and meaningful. The reviewer's opinion is that the manuscript should be accepted for publication after minor revision. Some modification suggestions are as follows:
1.Please pay attention to the initial letter formatting issues about residual block in Figure 3,Figure 4 and Page 5.
2.In Equation 2 on Page 10, the function values when t is greater than t2 and less than t1 do not match the description in the text.
3.On Page 4, the author mentions that DLinear outperforms all the complex time series prediction models in publicly available datasets and has become the state-of-the-art. So what is the significance of training LSTM and improved LSTM in the manuscript?
4.In the analysis of the optimal time step, the author compares the accuracy of four different steps. I think you can take more samples for analysis. The best time step may appear between 48 and 64 or between 64 and 96.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank the reviewers and editor for their time and their thoughtful comments. The original review comments are reproduced in italic for reference. According to these comments, the manuscript has been substantially revised. The revised portion is marked in yellow in the revised manuscript. Detail responses to the comments can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents the implementation of a Wireless Sensor Network system for monitoring and predicting longitudinal differential settlement in tunnels during undercrossing construction, utilizing an improved ConvRes-DLinear forecasting model that incorporates time and process encoding bias to achieve accurate predictions with minimal error.
The study's findings provide valuable insights into the correlation between past and future settlement trends and offer guidance for monitoring and predicting longitudinal settlement in tunnels.
However, the review suggests major revisions in terms of clarifying research objectives, providing more details on the WSN system and model architecture, and discussing the practical implications of the results.
Addressing these revisions will enhance the paper's clarity, relevance, and impact in the field of tunnel construction and maintenance.
Detailed remarks and comments on specific sections of the paper have been provided in the marked manuscript.
These remarks aim to assist the authors in addressing specific areas that require improvement, clarification, or further elaboration.
Please refer to the marked manuscript for a more detailed analysis and suggestions for revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The paper would benefit from improvements in English language usage. The authors should carefully review the suggestions provided in the attached document and make necessary revisions to enhance the clarity and coherence of the manuscript. Attention to grammar, sentence structure, and word choice will greatly improve the overall readability of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank the reviewers and editor for their time and their thoughtful comments. The original review comments are reproduced in italic for reference. According to these comments, the manuscript has been substantially revised. The revised portion is marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Detail responses to the comments can be found in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for addressing the concerns raised during the first review round.
I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to improve the manuscript.
Overall, the revisions have significantly strengthened the paper, and I believe it is now in a much better shape for publication.
However, there are a few remaining points that need to be addressed before final acceptance.
General Remark:
One overarching concern that still requires clarification is the status of the settlement for rings 480, 483, and 485.
I still believe that the settlement is ongoing for these rings.
Some minor remarks are provided in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I appreciate the efforts made by the authors to improve the manuscript, including the slight improvements made in the language usage.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank the reviewers and editor again for their time and their thoughtful comments. The original review comments are reproduced in italic for reference. According to these comments, the manuscript has been substantially revised. The revised portion is marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Detail responses to the comments can be found in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
