Surface Settlement during Tunneling: Field Observation Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research clarifies the construction of tunnels and their effect on the upper structures. The effect of soil quality and its bearing capacity on structural endurance and the type of deformations that occur to the land or buildings erected on the surface of the earth can be taken into consideration. There are some observations that require modification, which are as follows:

 Re-write the extract in accordance with the results and write percentages of the results for the possibility of benefiting from the practical research

 - Increasing the number of recent references and removing the old ones that are useless for the research context

- Clarify the shape of the tunnel and the method used in the analysis and increase the methods of confirming the results by comparing them with the field records

- Consider modifying the language for research

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the time spent studying our work and the comments that were made, they all turned out to be very useful. Below are the responses to the comments on the work.

- Re-write the extract in accordance with the results and write percentages of the results for the possibility of benefiting from the practical research

Taken into account in the Annotation.

- Increasing the number of recent references and removing the old ones that are useless for the research context.

It seems impossible to exclude outdated references as they are vital for our research.

- Clarify the shape of the tunnel and the method used in the analysis and increase the methods of confirming the results by comparing them with the field records

The article was supplemented with a link used in the analysis (see the section Materials and Methods, paragraph 6). In our opinion, the methods of confirming the results are sufficient, since they rely on field observations.

- Consider modifying the language for research.

We have carried out work on correcting the language

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

I read your article with interest. The article left a generally favorable impression. I think that the presented article is of some interest and will be useful to the scientific community. However, there are the following comments on the article:

1.     The title of the article does not fully correspond to the conclusions drawn. It is recommended to edit the title of the article.

2.     The so-called Author's keywords were chosen. It is strongly recommended to mainly use keywords defined in Scopus as Engineering controlled terms or as Engineering main heading. It is recommended that the author find a SciVal topic that corresponds to the article and has prominence above 90%. Then, use the found topic's keywords and cite that topic's key authors' publication. This usage will increase the article's prominence and increase its citation in the future.

3.     The review part of the INTRODUCTION section is not like a search for a ready-made solution to the problem facing the author. The absence of such a solution (the scientific gap) in publications has not been formulated. Consequently, the author's research is not properly motivated. The research object, the goal, and the study's objectives are not clearly defined at the end of the INTRODUCTION section.

4.     References to local standards are incomprehensible to our potential English-speaking readers and without detailed explanations. It is recommended to refer not to normative documents but to the underlying scientific results. The Internet link to the full text of the standard should be indicated in the list of references (for example, http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200023524 ).

5.     There is no comparison with the results of other researchers in the RESULTS and DISCUSSION section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for the time spent studying our work and the comments that were made, they all turned out to be very useful. Below are the responses to the comments on the work.

- The title of the article does not fully correspond to the conclusions drawn. It is recommended to edit the title of the article.

The title of the article has been corrected

- The so-called Author's keywords were chosen. It is strongly recommended to mainly use keywords defined in Scopus as Engineering controlled terms or as Engineering main heading. It is recommended that the author find a SciVal topic that corresponds to the article and has prominence above 90%. Then, use the found topic's keywords and cite that topic's key authors' publication. This usage will increase the article's prominence and increase its citation in the future.

Keywords have been corrected

- The review part of the INTRODUCTION section is not like a search for a ready-made solution to the problem facing the author. The absence of such a solution (the scientific gap) in publications has not been formulated. Consequently, the author's research is not properly motivated. The research object, the goal, and the study's objectives are not clearly defined at the end of the INTRODUCTION section.

Added a paragraph at the end of the INTRODUCTION section

- References to local standards are incomprehensible to our potential English-speaking readers and without detailed explanations. It is recommended to refer not to normative documents but to the underlying scientific results. The Internet link to the full text of the standard should be indicated in the list of references (for example, http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200023524 ).

Added an Internet link to the full text of the standard in the references.

- There is no comparison with the results of other researchers in the RESULTS and DISCUSSION section.

Comparison of our results with the results of other authors to the extent possible. The material that other authors provide is limited to a smaller number of parameters. Someone considers the influence of 1 to 3 parameters, and someone uses all the parameters to solve problems using a neural network that predicts precipitation during tunnelling. At the end of the RESULTS section, we wrote that settlements were within the same values as that of colleagues.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

all notes are done