Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manusript is defined well into sections and subsections but there are major grammatical mistakes. The authors are suggested to get it corrected by some English expert or native speaker. The conclusion and the introduction section needs few more insights about the work. Also the following revisions should be made:

1. line 40 "broke"- check for grammar

2. line 45- "engineering geological"- doesn't make a sense

3. line 45 to 49- too big paragraph. shorten it and make it readable for the readers.

4. line 53 "complicated"

5.  line 58-  use connectors between "method" "the other"

6.  line 62-70- too big paragraph. shorten it and make it readable for the readers.

7. line 96- what do you mean by "many results", specify them, and cite the works.

8. line 120- "so on" seems so informal. rewrite it.

9. line 137-  change "bases" to is based on.

10. line 139- the whole paragraph needs modifications, rewrite it.

11.  section 3.1- rewrite line no. 175

12. line 158 and 165- instead of using the word "weakness" use limitations.

13. line 162- change "dens" to "dense"

14. The  figures from 5(a) to 5(h) needs some marking and labels so that the differnce and developments can be seen. It is advised to add some labels.

15.  Some recent years papers should be cited from the concerned field/ technique to provide the authenticity of the study. Specifically of the year 2021 and 2022. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Reading your paper, although the topic is interesting, it has an incomplete numerical model description. Also, it needs a clear definition of the source of the displacement measurements (put in the abstract a small sentence that actual measurements in the field were used to verify your model).  Also, the displacements you have presented include the displacements of the area before excavation which are wrong because they cannot be measured. The correct displacements are found: 1) by solving the model without the excavations, 2) subtract the initial displacements and 3) solve in stages of the excavations. More detailed review comments are:

·       In line 8 complex potential method

Muskhelishvili, N. (1963). Some basic problems of the mathematical theory of elasticity. Groningen, The Netherlands: P. Noordhoff Ltd.

·       Lines 95-96 Many scholars have done a lot of simulation tests and achieved many results [26-28], too general a statement, better say a few words about each reference.

·       In line 119 add the displacement discontinuity method (special boundary element method including cracks):

Crouch, S. (1980). Analysis of stresses and displacements around underground excavations: An application of the displacement discontinuity method. (second printing ed.). University of Minnesota geomechanics report.

·       Lines 163-167: You say a denser grid reduces the calculation efficiency, usually is the opposite: more elements more accurate solution (but harder to solve).

·       Lines 201-202 U-shape steel plate? Is it from some experimental device? Probably used fixed displacements BCs in all the box boundaries, why do you say displacements is fixed in 4 points?

·       Why did you use the 3 schemes? Isn’t known the excavation sequence?

·     Section 4.1 Give more details about the fracture creation procedure. What do black and red cracks represent? Which criterion are you apply in crack propagation?

·     In figures 5-7 focus on the excavation area (zoom in) to a more detailed cracks view.

·       Line 245: you say small crack which as I see it is about 1m (give dimension). This is relative to the size of the grid that you use. Did you try denser discretization?

·       Section 4.1: Wrong displacement presentation, you need to present the displacement after the starting of excavation. Didn’t you use an initial solution stage without any excavation? This excavation already exists and can’t be measured during the cavern excavation.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I agree with the changes applied to the manuscript, but I still doubt that initial displacements have been subtracted from the models based on the colour figure 12. Add an extra figure with the displacement solution at selected points (for example 4,8,12) with excavation stages.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx