Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Dynamic Failure Mechanisms of Underground Roadway Induced by Incident Stress Wave

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Can the author polish more on the abstract? Abstract should also include the potential impact on this field not just the conclusion of current work.

2. Figure 5(b), the stress-strain curves are different in the initial part of the simulation and exp.  Can the author elucidate more on this? 

3. Figure 7, the captions use radius r to describe the dimension. However for the other images, d is used. Should be consistent.

4. Most of the citations are old. Only ~5 citations show the recent work. Can the author add more citations to represent current progress on this field?

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion！The response to your reviewe is added in PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Comments on manuscript applsci-1900283:

In this study, the mechanisms of dynamic disasters around underground roadways/tunnels were examined by adopting split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) laboratory tests to reproduce the failure process of the surrounding rock subjected to incident stress waves. The failure mechanism of the surrounding rock and spatiotemporal evolution of the hoop stress around the hole were studied using a two-dimensional particle flow code (PFC2D) numerical simulation, to ensure consistency with the experimental results. The topic is interesting. However, there are several concerns about this manuscript.

1)    The authors should provide critical review about previous studies, other than simply description of the previous studies.  

2)    The novelty(s)/contribution(s) of the study is not clear. It is recommended that the authors should clearly explain that in the last paragraph of the introduction section using bullets.

3)    Figure 3 is very dark and difficult to understand. It should be revised.

4)    The quality of some of the figures (for example, Figure 5 (b), Figure 20 (b), etc.) should be increased.

5)    The sentence in the abstract from line 14 to 16 (The failure mechanism of the surrounding rock and spatiotemporal evolution of the hoop stress around the hole were studied using a two-dimensional particle flow code (PFC2D) numerical simulation to ensure consistency with the experimental results.) should be rephrased in order to increase the clarity.

6)    The conclusions presented in the abstract should not be numbered. The detailed conclusions should be provided in the conclusion section. In the abstract, the most important conclusions should be added briefly.

7)    In line 37, the space after “factors（Zhang et al 2021; Hosseinzadehsabeti et al 2021” should be deleted.

8)    In line 40, there should be spaces after the words “outbursts” and “rock bursts”.

9)    In line 44, there should be a space after the word “dynamic disasters”.

10) In line 52, there should be a space after the word “fracture energy”. The spaces issues should be resolved throughout the manuscript.

11) A flowchart should be included in the manuscript to clearly explain the methodology followed in the current study.

12) It is highly recommended to improve the write up of the paper.

13) A discussion section should be included in the manuscript.

14)  Add more recent references in the study area in the introduction section. It is highly recommended to add the following references :

1.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095268619300424

2.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-018-9792-1

3.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160917304252

4.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-020-09040-0

5.     https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-58-35-9718

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestion！The response to your reviewe is added in PDF.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the mechanisms of dynamic disasters around underground roadways/tunnels were examined by adopting split Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) laboratory tests to reproduce the failure process of the surrounding rock subjected to incident stress waves. The failure mechanism of the surrounding rock and spatiotemporal evolution of the hoop stress around the hole were studied using a two-dimensional particle flow code (PFC2D) numerical simulation, to ensure consistency with the experimental results. The topic is interesting. However, there are several concerns about this manuscript.

1)    The novelty(s)/contribution(s) of the study is not clear. It is recommended that the authors should clearly explain that in the last paragraph of the introduction section using bullets.

2)    Figure 3 is very dark and difficult to understand. It should be revised.

3)    The quality of some of the figures (for example, Figure 5 (b), Figure 20 (b), etc.) should be increased.

4)    A flowchart should be included in the manuscript to clearly explain the methodology followed in the current study.

5)    A discussion section should be included in the manuscript.

6)     Add more recent references in the study area in the introduction section. It is highly recommended to add the following references :

1.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095268619300424

2.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-018-9792-1

3.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160917304252

4.     https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-020-09040-0

5.     https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-58-35-9718

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your helpful advises!The response to the your comments  has been attached in the Word file. I hope you will be satisfied with it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx