Failure Mechanism Analysis and Optimization Analysis of Tunnel Joint Waterstop Considering Bonding and Extrusion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented problem is interesting from a scientific point of view, but according to the reviewer, it is limited in the  manuscript  to the analysis of the interaction of the tape and concrete under ideal condition, without water action, for one shape of the tape , ie. one dimensions, one model and ribs sizes. This information  should be indicated in the concusions. The available tapes are produced in various profiles, which can undoubtly have a significant impact on the nature of the destruction. The presented model takes into account concrete and belt interaction under ideal conditions without taking into account the influence of water loads, which have a significant impact on the belt durability. It seems that for this reason such loads should be included in the numerical model.

References mainly refer to Chinese experiences , and yet such experiences are also available in other countries and in the introduction it would be worth mentioning them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study conducted by the authors have evaluated the buried rubber waterstop for tunnel joints. Generally speaking, the paper is well organized, and the study was conducted in an organized way. However, there are a lot of very long sentences throughout the paper, which might cause some issues for the audience to understand. Besides, followings are some comments that need to be addressed by the authors:

1. line 215, delete “The”.

 

2. In chapter 3.2.1, the authors show the parameters used in the finite element model, such as ratio of biaxial to uniaxial compressive strength, viscosity parameter, etc. However, I did not see any explanation or references regarding to these values. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewers' comments:

Manuscript ID: applsci-1747081

Full Title: Failure mechanism analysis and optimization analysis of tunnel joint waterstop considering bonding and extrusion.

 

The manuscript needs a detailed editing. Some markings are made to just illustrate the extent of editing needed. A thorough revision addressing all the concerns is needed and if the authors are prepared to do that it can be considered for a review of the revised manuscript.

 

The authors need to consider the following comments

1) In the Abstract, the authors need to improve with more specific short results and conclusions, i.e. academic novelty or technical advantages.

2) The introduction section should be improved; more related papers must be discussed and superiority, novelty, critical improvement in this study must be clarified.

3) Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the waterproof structure of the mountain tunnel joints. – Not clear male clear.

4) 3.1. Bonding strength test and initial contact pressure calculation – Should be improve.

5) 3.2.4. Deformation stress of waterstop - Should be improve.

6) Figure 14 and 15 - Not clear male clear.

7) 4.2. Optimal analysis of the adhesion between waterstop and concrete - Should be improve.

8) Conclusion should be concise.

9) References: make all references in same format for volume number, page number and journal name.

10) Several faults: are added or missing spaces between words: see manuscript file.

Based on these, I advise the authors to rectify the above mentioned errors and we hope to re-evaluate the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper studies the water-proofing performance of tunnel joints in order to propose an optimum solution to control water leakage through these joints. 

The topic appears to be original and relevant to the field of civil engineering. It addresses an important topic in constructing tunnels, which could be of great importance for ongoing tunneling projects in China, as described in the manuscript.

There is limited literature on the paper's subject, which is herein expanded by incorporating an optimization study using analytical and experimental methods.

The authors present a relatively comprehensive study. I believe the manuscript can be improved by considering the following suggestions:

1- Mooney-Rivlin model is adopted for modeling rubber water-stop. It would be great to discuss why this model is chosen over similar models (if any). Also, I could not find proper referencing for this model in the manuscript.

2- It would be great if the authors could discuss the role of deterioration over time and earthquake excitation on the performance of joints. Did you consider these parameters in the detailing?

The paper presents consistent conclusions. The authors addressed the main posed question. 

The references seem adequate to me. The authors may want to add a reference to the Mooney-Rivlin model.

 

The tables and figures look appropriate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.