Experimental Study on Grouting Diffusion Law of Tunnel Secondary Lining Cracks Based on Different Slurry Viscosities
, Peng Liu 2,3, Yi Wu 1,4,*, Liming Wu 1,4,*, Chen Li 2, Shiyang Liu 1,4 and Yuanfu Zhou 1,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions for the Authors
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
This manuscript analyzes the impact of waterproof and drainage layer design patterns on the water pressure and drainage volume of tunnel linings. The authors conducted filtration model tests and refined numerical simulations in a tunnel located in Hengwu, Kaihua County, Zhejiang Province, China. Two systems, semi-enclosed and fully enclosed waterproofing models, were compared. The findings highlight significant differences in hydraulic load between the initial support and secondary lining under these models, with notable implications for the control of longitudinal spacing between circumferential blind drainage pipes. These results are relevant for improving tunnel safety and design.
2. What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?
The study provides valuable insights into the importance of controlling the separation between blind drainage pipes, even proposing specific range values. This focus addresses a critical gap in ensuring efficient drainage and pressure management in tunnel engineering.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The manuscript contributes practical applications for tunnel engineers by presenting findings that can enhance drainage system efficiency. However, to improve comparability and generalization of results, it is recommended to include a detailed section on materials and methods with a flow diagram. This addition would clarify the infiltration model and its foundational principles, enabling better extrapolation of results to other contexts.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Add a section detailing the methodology, including a flow diagram to illustrate the steps followed.
Clearly explain the bases for the infiltration model used, and consider renaming and reorganizing relevant content to streamline this addition.
No additional tests are deemed necessary at this stage, but these clarifications are crucial for a robust methodological framework (see point 6).
5. Describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
The conclusions align well with the evidence presented, addressing the main research questions. However, a brief clarification could be added to indicate how some conclusions might be generalized to other projects, broadening the applicability of the findings.
6. Are the references appropriate?
The references are generally appropriate but require reinforcement in two key areas:
Clarify the need to account for the Terzaghi effect in infiltration modeling (suggested reference: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13051343).
Address the importance of non-linear models in stress analysis for coupled infiltration models (suggested reference: Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., & Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002 edition. Proceedings of NARMS-Tac, 1(1), 267-273).
If the authors identify other recent, well-cited references that cover these topics comprehensively, they can substitute the suggested ones.
7. Include any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
Correct typographical errors (e.g., in the conclusions section: 5. Conclusion repeated and singular).
Improve the resolution of figures, particularly Figure 1, to enhance clarity and visual impact.
General Assessment
This manuscript addresses an important topic in tunnel engineering, providing actionable insights for improving waterproof and drainage systems. The recommendations outlined, particularly those regarding the methodology and additional references, will significantly enhance the clarity and impact of the study.
I recommend major revisions to address these critical points before publication.
I appreciate you.
Author Response
Comments 1: What is the main question addressed by the research?
Response 1: This manuscript analyzes the diffusion law of ultrafine cement slurry (UCS) with different water-cement ratios in tunnel second lining cracks during grouting, the grouting of ultrafine cement slurry with different water-cement ratios in tunnel second lining cracks was carried out by experimental and theoretical analysis methods. Through the collection and data analysis of the diffusion time history images of ultrafine cement slurry in the tunnel second lining cracks, which obtained the diffusion morphological characteristics of ultrafine cement slurry with different water-cement ratios. The research results provide theoretical support for the design and construction of grouting repair in tunnel second lining cracks.
Comments 2: What parts do you consider original or relevant to the field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address?
Response 2: The study provides valuable insights into the importance of the diffusion morphological characteristics of ultrafine cement slurry with different water-cement ratios by experiment. The grouting diffusion equation of tunnel secondary lining crack based on ultra-fine cement slurry with different water-cement ratios is established. This focus addresses the change rule between the radius of grout diffusion radius and time, and the critical water-cement ratio of the range of slurry diffusion in the direction of the inverse gravity and other issues in tunnel engineering. The research results provide theoretical support for the design and construction of grouting repair in tunnel second lining cracks.
Comments 3:What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Response 3: The manuscript contributes practical applications for the design and construction of grouting repair in tunnel second lining cracks by presenting findings that can enhance grouting repair efficiency. However, to improve comparability and generalization of results, it is recommended to include a detailed experimental method and data analysis of the diffusion time history images of ultrafine cement slurry in the tunnel second lining cracks. This addition would clarify the experimental model and its foundational principles, enabling better extrapolation of results to other contexts.
Comments 4: What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Response 4: Add a section detailing the methodology, including a flow diagram to illustrate the steps followed.
Clearly explain the bases for the grouting model used and consider renaming and reorganizing relevant content to streamline this addition. (see Figure 4). The next step is to study the diffusion law of oblique crack grouting. The next step is to study the diffusion law of oblique crack grouting. It is helpful to perfect the study of grouting diffusion law of tunnel secondary lining crack.
Comments 5: Describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Response 5: The conclusions align well with the evidence presented, addressing the main research questions. However, a brief clarification could be added to indicate how some conclusions might be generalized to other projects, broadening the applicability of the findings.
Comments 6: Are the references appropriate?
Response 6: The references are generally appropriate but require reinforcement in one key area:
Clarify the need to account for the Bingham Fluids effect in grouting modeling (suggested reference: https://doi.org/10.3390/app132111986).
Comments 7: Include any additional comments on the tables and figures and the quality of the data.
Response 7: Correct typographical errors (e.g., in the conclusions section: Conclusion repeated and singular).
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the paper. My comments and recommendations for correcting the paper are as follows:
Comment 1:
Line 22- It would be better to write it like this “They are divided into three grouting diffusion patterns: Circular diffusion zone, excessive diffusion zone, and elliptical diffusion zone.” instead “They are divided into three grouting diffusion patterns, namely, Circular diffusion zone, excessive diffusion zone, and elliptical diffusion zone.”
Comment 2:
Sentences do not end with ;. It is mandatory to end sentences with a full stop. A few examples are:
Line 65- ing; Liu, et al [20,21] investigated
Line 67- under dynamic water conditions; Zhou, et al [22]investigated the diffusion law of
Comment 3:
Line 332 and Line 333 - 5. Conclusion
The title “5. Conclusion” is repeated twice in lines 332 and 333
Comment 4:
There are no directions for further research. Please add directions for further research.
Comment 5:
Line 177 - JDL- What does the abbreviation JDL mean? The first time an abbreviation is mentioned, its full name must be given.
Comment 6:
Line 216- slurry The diffusion pattern is elliptical diffusion zone. - It should be lowercase t (the instead The) .
I find this sentence a bit strange. Please look at it. Should the sentence end earlier or should the be written with a lowercase t.
“the amount of injected slurry is gradually increased by the action of gravity, and the slurry The diffusion pattern is elliptical diffusion zone.”
Author Response
Comment 1:
Line 22- It would be better to write it like this “They are divided into three grouting diffusion patterns: Circular diffusion zone, excessive diffusion zone, and elliptical diffusion zone.” instead “They are divided into three grouting diffusion patterns, namely, Circular diffusion zone, excessive diffusion zone, and elliptical diffusion zone.”
Response 1: has been revised.
Comment 2:
Sentences do not end with ;. It is mandatory to end sentences with a full stop. A few examples are:
Line 65- ing; Liu, et al [20,21] investigated
Line 67- under dynamic water conditions; Zhou, et al [22]investigated the diffusion law of
Response 2: has been revised.
Comment 3:
Line 332 and Line 333 - 5. Conclusion
The title “5. Conclusion” is repeated twice in lines 332 and 333
Response 3: has been revised.
Comment 4:
There are no directions for further research. Please add directions for further research.
Response 4: has been revised (see Conclusion and discussion (4)).
Comment 5:
Line 177 - JDL- What does the abbreviation JDL mean? The first time an abbreviation is mentioned, its full name must be given.
Response 5: has been revised.
Comment 6:
Line 216- slurry the diffusion pattern is elliptical diffusion zone. - It should be lowercase t (the instead The) . I find this sentence a bit strange. Please look at it. Should the sentence end earlier or should they be written with a lowercase t. “the amount of injected slurry is gradually increased by the action of gravity, and the slurry The diffusion pattern is elliptical diffusion zone.”
Response 6: has been revised.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper elucidates the diffusion behavior of ultrafine cement grouting materials with varying water-to-cement ratios in the secondary lining cracks of tunnels. The study combines experimental testing with theoretical analysis. Overall the paper is interesting and has potential in real-life situations. The workload of the whole research is comprehensively evaluated, and adequately presented. Publication is recommended with minor revision according to the comments reported.
Line 14-15 expression “subway disease” is not adequate since the word disease is commonly used for live beings. Also in Line 50.
Lines 16-35 Abstract should be rewritten using simpler sentences to improve clarity.
Line 110. In Fig.1. it is written “Rerfusion” instead of “Perfusion”.
Line 178 How pressure of 0.3 MPa for the slurry injected was chosen? Was there any initial testing of that parameter?
Line 180-184 step 5 of the testing program needs clarification. What is meant by “Modelâ…¡ was turned on”?
At what temperature was testing performed? Since viscosity is usually temperature dependent, did you consider temperature influence? That could greatly influence the crack injection in real tunnel lining. Please provide elaboration on that effect.
Do not use “paper” or article. Use study or research. This should be followed throughout the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo issues with the language used.
Author Response
Comments 1: Line 14-15 expression “subway disease” is not adequate since the word disease is commonly used for live beings. Also in Line 50.
Response 1: Thank you for your comments, and I have consulted relevant literature and news reports (such as : https://facts.net/fitness-and-wellbeing/public-health/37-facts-about-nyc-subway-diseases/). “Subway disease” can be used in engineering structures.
Comments 2: Lines 16-35 Abstract should be rewritten using simpler sentences to improve clarity.
Response 2: has been revised.
Comments 3: Line 110. In Fig.1. it is written “Rerfusion” instead of “Perfusion”.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments, has been revised “Slurry morphology diagram”.
Comments 4: Line 178 How pressure of 0.3 MPa for the slurry injected was chosen? Was there any initial testing of that parameter?
Response 4: has been revised.
Comments 5: Line 180-184 step 5 of the testing program needs clarification. What is meant by “Model â…¡ was turned on”?
Response 5: has been revised. The chart of experimental procedure is added.
Comments 6: At what temperature was testing performed? Since viscosity is usually temperature dependent, did you consider temperature influence? That could greatly influence the crack injection in real tunnel lining. Please provide elaboration on that effect.
Response 6: the slurry viscosity test and grouting experiments are carried out at 20 Celsius degrees. Indeed, temperature affects the slurry viscosity, furthermore, the viscosity affects the grouting effect. In general, the actual tunnel lining crack grouting is also carried out at normal temperature, and the temperature field studied in this paper is consistent with the practice.
Comments 7: Do not use “paper” or article. Use study or research. This should be followed throughout the manuscript.
Response 7: has been revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, There is still no clear flow chart. Otherwise, OK.
Author Response
Response 1: Add a section detailing the methodology, including a flow diagram to illustrate the steps followed.
Clearly explain the bases for the grouting model used and consider renaming and reorganizing relevant content to streamline this addition. (see 2.4 Experimental method and process). The next step is to study the diffusion law of oblique crack grouting. The next step is to study the diffusion law of oblique crack grouting. It is helpful to perfect the study of grouting diffusion law of tunnel secondary lining crack.
