Seismic Response Analysis of a Shield Tunnel in a Coastal Nuclear Power Plant under a Complex Foundation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Write the conclusions in one section, not in the result section. Let the result section for the experiment/simulation result and discussion regarding the result.
2. The authors should provide the implication of their research on how the implementation of their method/research/etc will be benefit other measurements/cases.
3. Please also guide the readers with the direction of future work/implementation
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents results of numerical analysis carried out on a case of seismic response of shield tunnel in coastal nuclear power plant under complex situation concerning foundations. Despite the modeling efforts conceived by the authors it can be noted the total absence of experimental real results that can be taken as reference for such calculations. In the words, all the analyses are based on some assumptions taken by the authors, while any experimental data are completely absent from such analyses. The doubt of the reviewer stands on the value of such complex analyses in absence of real experimental data. In my opinion the authors should find at least in the literature if not conducted in the analysed site some evidences to render a minimum realistic the numerical predictions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The paper should be slightly reworked and then re-submitted for review, below I will highlight some suggestions:
- The abstract should be rewritten, summarized so that it does not exceed 200 words.
- Keywords should be put in alphabetical order
- The explanation in Fig.2 appears on another page and is not ok from an editorial point of view
- Subchapter 2.2.1.Viscoelastic artificial boundary method appears on the last line, should be reedited
- In Fig. 5 the text is not clear, maybe the text should be enlarged
- Maybe the results section should be transformed into the "conclusions" section and possibly expanded
- The references section should also be expanded and they should be from the last 5 years
- Please check the figures to make sure they are as in the template of the journal
- Maybe in subchapter " 3. Engineering example" it would be good to find another expression or to change a little the logical thread of the paper, for example it could enter as "case study" and the next 2 subchapters (4 and 5) could be 3.1 and 3.2.
Comments for author File: Comments.doc
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All my comments and suggestions have been considered in the revised paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
If the other reviewers agree, the paper can be published after careful proofreading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
