Mechanical Properties of the Functionally Graded Lining for a Deep Buried Subway Tunnel
, Jin-Ming Chen 3, Xiang-Qing Xu 3, Chong Xu 2, Zhao-Wei Zhang 3 and Gang Song 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript studied the issue of “Mechanical Properties of the Functionally graded Lining of Deeply Buried Subway Tunnel”.
First of all, I would like to thank the authors of this manuscript for the effort they put into making it. The paper needs to be rewritten, its objectives well redefined, and details of the experimental program clearly stated. On the other hand, I have added some comments with the main objective of improving the manuscript.
i. What is the innovation point or significance of the study for this article? The abstract does not reflect any innovation and not even quantitative results are not demonstrated by the authors. Please make clear the novelty and contribution of the manuscript and its results as compared to the extensive literature available.
ii. The parameters (such as a, b, t, R …) used in the text should be defined at first. I suggest, the authors provide a nomenclature.
iii. In Fig. 12, the theoretical calculation has a lot of distance from the numerical results, why?
iv. The paper does not provide a clear objective of the study. Considering the drawbacks of the proposed numerical methods. How tolerance of results is considered in this text with the different number of calculations.
v. Eq 6. needs more justification, as this is not the method usually used for this purpose. Eqs. (6) and (10) are straightforward as long as the authors assume a constant stress distribution. Do they check this assumption?
vi. Results are merely present and there are no scientific findings are discussed. What is the difference between this manuscript and the article https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2363989 that was published by the current authors?
vii. Some latest relative papers are not included. Such as:
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020194
https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2017.13.3.431
viii. Please add the DOI of references.
ix. The English language shall be improved as well as the format of the manuscript. Also, a native speaker should check for correct English.
Author Response
This manuscript studied the issue of “Mechanical Properties of the Functionally graded Lining of Deeply Buried Subway Tunnel”.
First of all, I would like to thank the authors of this manuscript for the effort they put into making it. The paper needs to be rewritten, its objectives well redefined, and details of the experimental program clearly stated. On the other hand, I have added some comments with the main objective of improving the manuscript.
(1) What is the innovation point or significance of the study for this article? The abstract does not reflect any innovation and not even quantitative results are not demonstrated by the authors. Please make clear the novelty and contribution of the manuscript and its results as compared to the extensive literature available.
Response: the significance of the study for this article includes (1) the functionally graded lining is introduced into the shield tunnel under the non-uniform confining pressure and (2) the calculation model of internal force and deformation for functionally graded lining is established. These innovations were added in the abstract of the revised manuscript and they were not studied by the extensive literatures available. Thanks a lot.
(2) The parameters (such as a, b, t, R …) used in the text should be defined at first. I suggest, the authors provide a nomenclature.
Response: the parameters (such as a, b, t, R …) used in the text were defined in the revised manuscript. Thanks a lot.
(3) In Fig. 12, the theoretical calculation has a lot of distance from the numerical results, why?
Response: in the numerical calculation, the tunnel lining has a certain thickness, but in the theoretical calculation, the tunnel lining is simplified as a curved bar structure. Thanks a lot.
(4) The paper does not provide a clear objective of the study. Considering the drawbacks of the proposed numerical methods. How tolerance of results is considered in this text with the different number of calculations.
Response: the objective of the study was added in the revised manuscript. The objective of this study is the mechanical properties of the functionally graded lining for deep buried subway tunnel with the non-uniform confining pressure, which can offer a references to the design of the functionally graded lining.
Thanks a lot.
(5) Eq 6. needs more justification, as this is not the method usually used for this purpose. Eqs. (6) and (10) are straightforward as long as the authors assume a constant stress distribution. Do they check this assumption?
Response: the theoretical model is based on the force method of structural mechanics. Thanks a lot.
(6) Results are merely present and there are no scientific findings are discussed. What is the difference between this manuscript and the article https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2363989 that was published by the current authors?
Response: there is much difference between these two manuscripts. The article https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2363989 focuses on the shaft with the uniform confining pressure while this manuscript focuses on the subway shield tunnel which is in horizontal direction with ununiform confining pressure. Thanks a lot.
(7) Some latest relative papers are not included. Such as:
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020194
https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2017.13.3.431
Response: the above two manuscripts were added in the revised manuscript. Thanks a lot.
(8) Please add the DOI of references.
Response: the DOI of references was added in the revised manuscript. Thanks a lot.
(9) The English language shall be improved as well as the format of the manuscript. Also, a native speaker should check for correct English.
Response: the language of this manuscript was polished and thank all of your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
a) Grammar of the manuscript should be thoroughly checked.
b) symbols used must be described.
c) It would be better if derivation for Mp given.
d) "the distribution of section moment remain unchanged" repeated a number of times, must be explained.
e) Line number 216-217, comparing Fig. 7(b) with Fig. 5(b)...... must be clarified.
f) Line number 346 shows FGS. What is this?
g) Which version of ABAQUS had been used and modeling of the materials must be reported.
h) Fig. 16 is missing altogether.
i) Scope for further study should be given.
Author Response
- a) Grammar of the manuscript should be thoroughly checked.
Response: the grammar of the manuscript was checked. Thank you.
- b) symbols used must be described.
Response: symbols used were all described in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
- c) It would be better if derivation for Mp given.
Response: the derivation for Mp was given as follows. Thank you.
Under the top uniform pressure , the moment at section is
Under the lateral uniform pressure , the moment at section is
In total,
- d) "the distribution of section moment remain unchanged" repeated a number of times, must be explained.
Response: "the distribution of section moment remain unchanged" should be “the distribution trend of section moment is consistent.” which was checked in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
- e) Line number 216-217, comparing Fig. 7(b) with Fig. 5(b)...... must be clarified.
Response: they were check and they were correct. Thank you.
- f) Line number 346 shows FGS. What is this?
Response: FGS is the Functionally graded Structures. We used the full name in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
- g) Which version of ABAQUS had been used and modeling of the materials must be reported.
Response: The ABAQUS 6.14 version was used. Thank you.
- h) Fig. 16 is missing altogether.
Response: Fig. 16 was added in the revised manuscript. Thank you.
- i) Scope for further study should be given.
Response: further study was given in the revised manuscript as “Based on the theory of elasticity, a solution model of internal force and displacement of functionally graded lining under specific elastic function is proposed.” Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer comments.pdf
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response: the introduction and background were updated in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much.
Response: this theoretical part conducted was compared with the numerical simulation. Thank you very much.
Response: some manuscripts were added in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the article improve well.
