Waterproof Performance of Sealing Gasket in Shield Tunnel: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a comprehensive framework of references review proposed to describe that the research on waterproof sealing performance of shield tunnel joints is a worthy and in-depth subject. The result obtained in the conclusion presents four categories of problems that remain to be further investigated.
One can see the authors’ efforts and intentions. The manuscript is well-presented to accept this work in its current form.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for your patience and time, we really appreciate your valuable comments.
The detailed response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The comments are added in the attached file.
Throughout the paper, the conclusion drawn from your literature review at the end of every paragraph need to be added.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your patience and time, we really appreciate your valuable comments.
The detailed response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors attempt to review the current state-of-the-art for a specialist topic on the waterproofing capabilities of sealing gaskets in shield tunnelling. The review identifies important areas of knowledge in this space, i.e. mechanical behaviours of pipe joints and gaskets (specifically double-layer gaskets), material properties of rubber gaskets, simulation methods, and coupled thermal-mechanical properties. The identified knowledge gap from this review has been focused mainly on the latter of these areas, i.e. thermal-related effects on shield tunnel joints and sealing gaskets. This is an extremely focused area for future research opportunities, and is supported mainly by Sections 3 and 5 only.
Thus, there is a dissonance between the manuscript title and the identified research gap. This dissonance can be addressed by supplementing the review with additional essential topics, including fundamental lab-scaled experimental tests, field tests, alternative gasket materials, and engineering design approaches, guidelines and/or codes in other jurisdictions. Further elaboration is also needed for simulation of the tunnel joint seals, along with a summary of key findings. The research gaps should then be broadened.
By including these topics and details in an improved manuscript, the number of references could also be increased. A comprehensive review article tends to have more than 100 high-quality references, which is more than the 67 used in the current manuscript.
This reviewer is of the opinion that the manuscript requires significant improvement. Therefore, this reviewer recommends for this manuscript to undergo MAJOR REVISION.
The following are a few additional comments for the Authors to address:
- Table 2
- It is unclear whether these are lab-scale experiments or field studies.
- Footnote: The abbreviation “NP” is missing. Please do not confuse the use of colons and semicolons.
- Figure 2
- This is a generic flowchart for numerical models of engineering problems. It would be useful to highlight the particular modelling techniques specifically deployed for modelling tunnel joints and sealing gaskets, along with the seepage / ingress through these joints.
Author Response
Thank you for your patience and time, we really appreciate your valuable comments.
The detailed response is in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper looks good. Just change the longitudinal joints orientation in Fig 1a) as staggered.
Author Response
Thanks the reviewer for the time and effort reviewing the paper, Figure 1 a) is changed into the staggered lining structure.
Reviewer 3 Report
This Reviewer thanks the Authors for their time and effort in revising the manuscript. The inclusion of additional topics has made this manuscript a better representation of the state-of-the-art. This Reviewer's earlier comments have been addressed sufficiently.
There are a few spelling errors in terms of language. And for this reason alone, this Reviewer recommends for the manuscript to be ACCEPTED after a Minor Revision.
Author Response
Thanks for your patience and effort, the authors have improved the manuscript according to your valuable comment, the misspelling in the manuscript have been combed through, so is the grammar mistakes.
