A Theoretical Method and Model for TBM Tunnelling Trajectory Adjustment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results should be verified with a field measurement. The authors should prove the proposed hypothesis by verifying with experimental results. 

The paper should be checked for typographical errors and grammatical mistakes

Author Response

Response for the Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 1

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The results should be verified with a field measurement. The authors should prove the proposed hypothesis by verifying with experimental results

 

Response：

Thanks for your kind comments. In the revised manuscript, we added a comparison between our proposed method and published method by the other researcher (Wang, K. Research on performance of TBM gripping-thrusting-regripping mechanism. Tianjin University. 2017), in the 4.3 section of the revised manuscript. The reference proposed three kinds of condition with the bias distance of 3mm, and bias angle of 0.1°, 0.3°, and 0.5°. In fact, all of the reference results are located in the feasible region calculated by the proposed method. The results showed the consistence between our method and the published method, which proves the rationality of our method.

In addition, the proposed method has been verified by field measurement. In the 4.2 section, the comparison between proposed method (black curves in figure 9) and field data (red points in figure 9) is given, and the corresponding analysis are also given in this section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study introduces a theoretical method for adjusting the tunnelling trajectory of a TBM and contains practical application of TBM tunnelling trajectory adjustment

The topic of the is relevant but presented approach lacks more prominent novelty.

In comparison with other published material, the paper presents practical application of proposed method, including feasibility analysis.

The methodology is good but some possible improvements of the method can be discussed in regards with the advanced approaches such as deep learning etc. 

The conclusions are consistent with the topics of the paper and the questions are addressed. Some comparison of the results with other published material should be added.

The references can be extended. Numbering in references is duplicated.

Resolution of figures can be slightly increased.

Some formulations should be refined and some words don’t have appropriate word form.

Author Response

Response for the Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 2

 

Point 1:

The topic of the is relevant but presented approach lacks more prominent novelty.

 

Response 1:

Thanks for your kind comments. The proposed method is based on geometric laws. Intuitively, the method appears simple. However, as a theoretical method, the results of this method is verified to be effective by the field data (in section 4.2) and published method (in section 4.3), and it proves the practical value of the proposed method. In order to introduced our method in detail, in the revised version, the value of the method is added, as “This research belongs to the second category, aiming at optimally matching the tunnelling trajectory to the expected route and simultaneously eliminating deviations in distance and direction. The proposed method can obtain a feasible rotated angle region of main beam used to adjust the tunnelling trajectory, according to the current bias angle and distance. The beneficial effect of this method is that, using the rotated angle in the proposed feasible region, the tunnelling trajectory can be quickly corrected with short tunnelling distance. Meanwhile, the rotated angle is controlled to protect the side cutters from wear”.

 

Point 2:

The methodology is good but some possible improvements of the method can be discussed in regards with the advanced approaches such as deep learning etc.

 

Response 2:

Thanks for your nice suggestion. As a theoretical method, it has good potential to combine with field data and empirical methods, such as deep learning. In fact, a trajectory adjusting method based on theoretical rules and long-short terms memory (LSTM) is being researched by our team. In this research, LSTM is used to build the relationship between the current trajectory and the control parameters, and the theoretical method (proposed in this research) is used as a constraint to modify the relationship and improve the performance. However, limited by the article length, it can only be introduced in another paper instead of this paper.

 

Point 3:

The conclusions are consistent with the topics of the paper and the questions are addressed. Some comparison of the results with other published material should be added.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for your kind comments. In the revised manuscript, we added a comparison between our proposed method and published method by the other researcher (Wang, K. Research on performance of TBM gripping-thrusting-regripping mechanism. Tianjin University. 2017), in the 4.3 section of the revised manuscript. The reference proposed three kinds of condition with the bias distance of 3mm, and bias angle of 0.1°, 0.3°, and 0.5°. In fact, all of the reference results are located in the feasible region calculated by the proposed method. The results showed the consistence between our method and the published method, which proves the rationality of our method.

 

Point 4:

The references can be extended. Numbering in references is duplicated.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for your comments. Some published methods are added to compared with the proposed method in section 4.3. Numbering in references is deleted in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 5:

Resolution of figures can be slightly increased.

Response 5：

Thanks for your kind comments. In the revised manuscript, we have adjusted figures and their resolution are increased.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is valuable, even if the topic treated is very singular and according to the reviewer, the TBMs currently used have the PLC system that can automatically control the direction during the excavation, consequently, the work is more a sort of simulation than a research paper.

However, the paper can be interesting for some specific readers, if some improvements will be done:

It is suggested to:

- streamline the paper, 17 pages are too much, readers can lose interest to read;

- summarise and lighten paragraph 2.3

- table 2 - optimize the label, in the current form the first raw is not perfectly readable;

- paragraph 3.2 - too long and heavy. Difficulty readable. Please, streamline it;

- Table 3 - replace horizon with horizontal

- conclusions: funding and acknowledgment cannot be listed in the conclusion! Proper sections are needed.

Author Response

Response for the Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 3

 

Point 1:

Streamline the paper, 17 pages are too much, readers can lose interest to read.

 

Response 1:

Thanks for your kind comments. The total manuscript has been shortened to 15 pages. Especially, the mentioned sections are reduced more than 1/4, such as section 2.3 and 3.2.

 

Point 2:

Summarise and lighten paragraph 2.3

 

Response 2:

Thanks for your nice suggestion. Section 2.3 has been shortened about 1/3 in the revised manuscript. The related equations have been integrated together.

 

Point 3:

Table 2 - optimize the label, in the current form the first raw is not perfectly readable

 

Response 3:

Thanks for your kind comments. The old Table 2 are too crowded. In the revised version, the label, font size and spacing are adjust. Now, numbers in different column have enough spacing.

 

Point 4:

Paragraph 3.2 - too long and heavy. Difficulty readable. Please, streamline it.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for your comment. The section 3.2 has been shortened about 1/4.

 

Point 5:

Table 3 - replace horizon with horizontal.

Response 5：

Thanks for your reminder. All of the misuse of “horizon” are replaced with “horizontal” in the revised version.

 

Point 6:

Conclusions: funding and acknowledgment cannot be listed in the conclusion! Proper sections are needed.

Thanks for your comments. The funding and acknowledgment are moved to the end of this paper as an independent section.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The research is on proposing a methodology for curved TBM excavations. In fact, it is a difficult practice and the literature lacks this topic. However, it is quite difficult to deal with this problem in an academic article, because it is an operational and practical problem generally dealt by the practitioners. Putting an extensive academic study is limited for this topic. It seems that the authors did what could be done about the topic. In the end, the authors may put this topic into the literature. Hence, I think the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Response for the Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 4

 

Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 4:

The research is on proposing a methodology for curved TBM excavations. In fact, it is a difficult practice and the literature lacks this topic. However, it is quite difficult to deal with this problem in an academic article, because it is an operational and practical problem generally dealt by the practitioners. Putting an extensive academic study is limited for this topic. It seems that the authors did what could be done about the topic. In the end, the authors may put this topic into the literature. Hence, I think the manuscript can be accepted in the present form.

 

Response:

Thanks for your kind comments. The revised manuscript has been modified further, and some grammatical issues are corrected mainly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

- Section 2.3 is similar to the old verison. Please, Section 2.3 should be shortened 

- Again Table 2 is not clearly radable. It seems exactly the same of the last version

- The section 3.2 has not been shortened enough

- Table 3 - replace horizon with horizontal.

Thanks for your comments. The funding and acknowledgment are moved to the end of this paper as an independent section.

Author Response

Response for the Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 3

 

Point 1:

Section 2.3 is similar to the old verison. Please, Section 2.3 should be shortened.

 

Response 1:

Thanks for your kind comments. In the revised manuscript, the section 2.3 is shortened, especially some unnecessary equations are removed. Totally, the 12 equations in original section 2.3 are reduced to 6. In addition, explanation on the 3 stage of trajectory adjustment is also removed.

 

Point 2:

Again Table 2 is not clearly radable. It seems exactly the same of the last version.

 

Response 2:

Thanks for your comment. In the revised manuscript, 2 unnecessary columns have been removed, and the font size has been reduced. Now the table 2 looks loose.

 

Point 3:

The section 3.2 has not been shortened enough.

 

Response 3:

Thanks for your kind comments. In the revised version, the section 3.2 is shortened. In detail, the calculated process of the 3 constraints is reduced. In addition, we simplified the description of the constraints in Fig.7.

 

Point 4:

Table 3 - replace horizon with horizontal.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for your comment. All of the “horizon” in Table 3 has been changed to “horizontal”.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the answers.

The paper can be published 

Regards