Dynamic Risk Assessment of Ultra-Shallow-Buried and Large-Span Double-Arch Tunnel Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses an interesting topic of the dynamic risk assessment of ultra-shallow-buried and large span double-arch tunnel construction, which is appreciated. The study includes research about the dynamic risk assessment of double-arch tunnel construction. The reviewer appreciates the efforts done in this paper, however, the reviewer has some concerns regarding of the introduction, descriptions of analysis, results presentations, conclusion and references. The english language should be improved. In my opinion this article should be reject.

The introduction should be improved, because of is really poor. In literature you can found many researches about similar topic. You should read the papers about similar research and standards. Other aspect – what is new of your research? What is the major aim of the article? Therefore, in current version the introduction is not acceptable.

Description of analysis and results should be more detailed. In current version of article is not clear (may be only the Authors know). 20 Tables is too much and are not clear for the other readers, thus in next time please shown the results on the figures/diagrams/charts etc.

Conclusion is really poor and should be improved. What is the most important conclusion from this research? What is the next step of your research? This is the end of this research?

References should be improved. The 31 position of references in scientific paper is too small.

I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, with the ultra-shallow-buried and large-span double-arch tunnel in the land part of Xiamen Haicang undersea tunnel, the dynamic risk evaluation index system of double-arch tunnel construction was proposed, and the weight of each index was calculated by combining the expert investigation and AHP methods. The dynamic risk of the ultra-shallow-buried and large-span double-arch tunnel construction was quantitatively evaluated by using the fuzzy comprehensive assessment method. The method can be referred by similar engineering. The paper has novelty and advantages for this field research work. Hence, minor revision is recommended.

Some specific comments are listed as follows:

1. English writing is generally good; some tenses need further confirmation.
2. Risk type identification and risk factor identification are mentioned in the abstract, but they are not mentioned in the main body. Please explain further.
3. One key issue when you use AHP to do risk assessment is to collect the experts’ reply on questionnaire. In AHP, to determine fuzzy number, generally the is required. There are two approaches to do experts questionnaire: (1) one is the pairwise comparison, proposed by Saaty (1977), improved by Li et al (2013); (2) another method to do questionnaire is to use table comparison proposed by Lyu et al (2020). Thus, please discuss how you did experts questionnaire? Which type of the experienced experts you invited? Please compare the difference of the results from these two methods.

References:

Saaty, T.L. (1977). "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures." Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281.

Li, F., et al (2013). "Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(3), 312-320. Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000605.

Lyu, H.M., et al (2020). Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 146(3), 04019112. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001757.

4. How do you determine the fuzzy number? If you use of Lyu et al's (2020) new questionnaire method, you can determine the fuzzy number based on experts' replies.
5. In Figure 1, No. 4 working Well and No. 4 Working well should be indicated.
6. "climatic conditions" should be capitalized in Tables 1,6,7,8.
7. There is an error in the number of Equation 2.
8. In lines 285 and 286, please confirm whether “t” is italicized.

9. From 334 to 343 lines, the content is miscellaneous, please rewrite. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this paper the dynamic risk assessment of double-arch tunnel construction is studied. Several index and factors have been proposed for estimating this risk. The paper is good and the issue is very current, however some aspects should be improved:

1) The main problem that I have noted regards the justification of the proposed factors. Where they come from? From your technical experience? I think you should explain better this part. 

2) In the modern approach the Risk is estimated by considering the hazard, vulnerability and exposure (see reference A). I think you consider the hazard as "dynamic actions during the construction" and the vulnerability as the "tunnel cosntruction". Is it correct?

3) In Table 2, 65 factors are shown: 6 first-level (frome U1 to U6 in Table 1) and 30 second-level (U11 to U65).  I think you should indicate some references to justify at least the 6 fist-level factors. 

4) Several large tables are shown. 20 tables and only 4 figures you used to show the data, analyses and results. I suggest to introduce some figures (instead of some tables) to show the most important results. For a reader it should be clearer.

5) I suggest some references (B and C) where the risk analysis is treated in a similar way (i.e, by using factors, etc.) but for other type of structures and issues. I think it can be interesting for you.

References:

A) https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bc0e055-3712-11e7-a08e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en

B) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102311

C) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.03.048

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer appreciates the efforts done in this paper, however, the reviewer has some concerns regarding the introduction and conclusions. The english language should be improved. In my opinion this paper should be subjected to the major revision.

In the introduction please add the aspect of the soil-steel bridge/culvert/tunnel with low cover height. This types of structures will be very interesting for the readers.

The conclusions should be improved according to these paper (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103808, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2018.27.2.217, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002159 etc.) i.e. at the beginning it should be added generall conclusion from your research. After that it should be shown your most important conclusions (which was shown at this paper). And at the end it should be added the aspect of your further research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Applied Sciences.

Author Response

Thank you very much. It is great appreciated that the reviewer both comment on the manuscript and help authors improve their manuscript. In the future possible review, I will also learn from you to help the authors.