Next Article in Journal
A Framework for Pedestrian Attribute Recognition Using Deep Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
An Enhanced Discrete Element Modeling Method Considering Spatiotemporal Correlations for Investigating Deformations and Failures of Jointed Rock Slopes
Previous Article in Journal
Hybrid Dual-Hop RF/FSO Terrestrial-Deep Space Communication System under Solar Scintillation during Superior Solar Conjunction
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synthetic Study of Boulder Detection Using Multi-Configuration Combination of Cross-Hole ERT and Its Field Application in Xiamen Metro, China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Numerical Simulation on the Response of Adjacent Underground Pipelines to Super Shallow Buried Large Span Double-Arch Tunnel Excavation

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(2), 621; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020621
by Jianxiu Wang 1,2,3,*, Ansheng Cao 1, Zhao Wu 1, Zhipeng Sun 3, Xiao Lin 3, Lei Sun 3, Xiaotian Liu 1, Huboqiang Li 1 and Yuanwei Sun 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(2), 621; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020621
Submission received: 15 November 2021 / Revised: 5 January 2022 / Accepted: 6 January 2022 / Published: 10 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Numerical Simulations in Geotechnical Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer’s comment: Numerical simulation on the response of adjacent underground pipelines to super shallow buried large span double-arch tunnel excavation

Summary

The authors have undertaken an extensive study on Numerical simulation on the response of adjacent underground pipelines to super shallow buried large span double-arch tunnel excavation. The paper contains an extensive detail. An objective discussion, comparison and conclusions are made on their observations. As a result, it will be valuable to the scientific community. The following specific comments are provided to further refine the manuscript.

Detailed comments

  • Lines 112-115: Provide specific objectives of this research in this section.
  • Line 163: This section on establishment of numerical models should be linked to existing literature. Further, provide more justifications in this section.
  • Table 1: Provide additional justification on how material parameters were chosen.
  • The conclusions seem shallow. Provide more details in this section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, a numerical simulation has been provided to investigate the response of adjacent underground pipelines because of tunnel excavation. The idea of this work is interesting; however, the manuscript should be revised totally to validate the numerical simulation and discuss the results. 
1- The introduction should be revised by reviewing relevant papers so that the novelty of this work is highlighted. 
2- A theoretical background should be presented for this study.
3- In Fig. 1, the left section is not clear.
4- in page 3, it seems that the pipelines have been divided into two categories: rigid and flexible. The authors should define these categories. 
5- Experiments or other verified results should verify the results of numerical simulation. 
6- The boundary conditions and type of loading should be explained more. 
7- In Fig. 4, add a magnification from the portal section. 
8- Please explain why the settlement of symmetric pipelines relative to pipeline 1 is different.
9- What important information was added by Fig. 7 to Fig. 6.
10- It is suggested to study the effects of other loading types, such as traffic loads. 
12- Why do the settlement amounts usually converge at the end of distance (60 m).
13- Why settlement of thicker pipelines is more than thinner ones.
14- it is expected that square pipelines cause greater stress concentration; does this considered in the presented results.
15- The type of soil could have a significant effect on the settlement of pipelines. Please discuss it in this study. 
16- It is expected that optimum conditions and a guideline are presented as a conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Only minor comments.

1. Figs. 2 and 3 are so unclear and very small. Please improve them.

2. More details on FEM should be added. 

3. Number of meshes and the boundary conditions of the model in Fig. 4 should be given.

4. Figs. 6 and 7 are also difficult to see.

5. More references regarding the use of finite element method for tunnels should be added as:

  • - Design equation for stability of shallow unlined circular tunnels in Hoek-Brown rock masses.
  • - Undrained stability of unlined square tunnels in clays with linearly increasing anisotropic shear strength
  • - Support pressure for circular tunnels in two layered undrained clay
  • - Stability of unsupported circular tunnels in anisotropic normally and over consolidated saturated clay
  • - Peripheral stability of circular tunnels in anisotropic undrained clay  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reference of Eq. 1 and 2 should be added to the manuscript.
Several Figures such as 7, 8, and 10 have been shown twice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop