Enhancement Seismic Response of a Bored Tunnel Using Isolation for the Challenge of a Faulted Rock Crossing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
the introduction to fault mechanics looks a bit like a lecture (about very well-known aspects .. at least for Earth scientists) and is certainly not needed for a research paper.
An external English review would be necessary (also for the figures - with many writing errors).
A spectral analysis of the simulatated seismic motion would be helpful to better unterstand the grouting effect.
Figure captions are totally insufficient (also colour scales should be unified).
yours
reviewer H
Comments on the Quality of English Language
see above - external Engl rev necessary
Author Response
Dear sir,
I have rewritten the manuscript and the new sections have been highlighted.
I have used the MDPI English Editing service to review the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I rate the presented article as highly current. The study investigates the effect of the formation of isolation material between the circular tunnel and the adjacent fault rock on the seismic response, using two parts of the parametric analysis for the isolation material in the model. Changes in the mechanical properties of the material were investigated, as well as how the change in the width of the isolation compared to the width of the fault affects the resulting stresses in the tunnel. The Midas software based on the finite element method was used to model the outputs. A time-history analysis using the El Centro earthquake was used for the seismic effects.
The results of this study are recommendations for constructors and designers in the design of tunnels to avoid major earthquake damage to the designed structures.
My comments:
- I recommend unifying the writing of literature.
- unify the spaces after the numbering of the literature,
- line 52 put the space before [28
- line 288 – move the bracket ) to the end of line 287
Author Response
Dear sir,
I have rewritten the manuscript and the new sections have been highlighted.
I have used the MDPI English Editing service to review the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The aim of this article is to reveal the influence of rock faults on TBM by means of finite element numerical simulation Midas\/GTS-NX, the research method is scientific and reliable, and the research is in line with the theme idea of the journal. However, we found that the article still has some points that deserve to be corrected and explained. The specific problems are listed below:
1, first of all, the abstract part of the article still needs to be refined, which only provides the background of the study, research methods and means, and does not elaborate the results and findings of the study. It is also hoped that the authors will improve this, or make a slight amendment, so that the background, purpose, methodology, and results of the study in the abstract will be presented in a very specific and concise manner.
2. Secondly, the introduction part is also not specific enough and seems to be a bit disorganized on the topic. The background part does not need to present too much, and then more to show the progress of research and this paper's research characteristics and ideas of innovation.
3、It is suggested that there is no need to list Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, and the causes of faulting and the factors of Tunnel Damage-Relating damage are pointed out directly in the article.
4, Figure 5 in the 100rings is expressed what, the article did not give the explanation, in addition in 198 lines, gives the tunnel outer diameter but not give the inner diameter, the article should be expressed for the chart. Suggested amendment.
5, grouting materials do not provide, mechanical parameters? For example, take Mohr-Coulomb as an example, cohesion and angle of internal friction. Please give an explanation.
6, the conclusion part should be fully mentioned in the article of the research results as well as recommendations, and points of discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is suggested to improve the expression of professional names and some sentences.
Author Response
Dear sir,
I have rewritten the manuscript and the new sections have been highlighted.
I have used the MDPI English Editing service to review the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study delves into the method of mitigating seismic impacts by introducing an isolation material between a tunnel and the adjacent faulted rock under faulted rock conditions. The Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) tunnel and the neighboring faulted rock or sudden change in rock are simulated using the finite element method, examining how changes in the mechanical properties of the isolation material and the variations in isolation width affect the tunnel's stress and displacement. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the isolation layer under seismic loading is investigated. The stress response of the tunnel during seismic events is evaluated through time-history analysis of the El Centro earthquake.
1. The structure of the abstract could be further optimized, for example, by organizing the content according to the background, objective, method, results, and conclusion. A quantitative description of key results is provided to give readers an intuitive understanding of the research findings.
2. In the introduction, it is recommended to discuss the existing seismic mitigation strategies and their limitations to highlight the innovation and contribution of this study.
3. In the third section, when describing the finite element model, could more details be provided on the model establishment, such as mesh division, material model selection, etc.?
4. In the fourth section, merely describing the observed phenomena is insufficient. It is suggested that the author conducts a more in-depth analysis of the mechanism behind the seismic mitigation effect of the isolation material.
5. In lines 245-247, only the work done by Table 5 is mentioned without any specific descriptive language.
6. The author is asked to check the font of the second row and first column in Tables 5 and 6 to ensure consistency with the rest of the rows.
7. In references 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16, the font of the journal titles is inconsistent with the rest of the reference text. The author is requested to make corrections.
8. Please simplify the sentence structure throughout the text, avoiding complex language and ensuring that the information flows logically and is easy to understand.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
This study delves into the method of mitigating seismic impacts by introducing an isolation material between a tunnel and the adjacent faulted rock under faulted rock conditions. The Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) tunnel and the neighboring faulted rock or sudden change in rock are simulated using the finite element method, examining how changes in the mechanical properties of the isolation material and the variations in isolation width affect the tunnel's stress and displacement. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the isolation layer under seismic loading is investigated. The stress response of the tunnel during seismic events is evaluated through time-history analysis of the El Centro earthquake.
1. The structure of the abstract could be further optimized, for example, by organizing the content according to the background, objective, method, results, and conclusion. A quantitative description of key results is provided to give readers an intuitive understanding of the research findings.
2. In the introduction, it is recommended to discuss the existing seismic mitigation strategies and their limitations to highlight the innovation and contribution of this study.
3. In the third section, when describing the finite element model, could more details be provided on the model establishment, such as mesh division, material model selection, etc.?
4. In the fourth section, merely describing the observed phenomena is insufficient. It is suggested that the author conducts a more in-depth analysis of the mechanism behind the seismic mitigation effect of the isolation material.
5. In lines 245-247, only the work done by Table 5 is mentioned without any specific descriptive language.
6. The author is asked to check the font of the second row and first column in Tables 5 and 6 to ensure consistency with the rest of the rows.
7. In references 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16, the font of the journal titles is inconsistent with the rest of the reference text. The author is requested to make corrections.
8. Please simplify the sentence structure throughout the text, avoiding complex language and ensuring that the information flows logically and is easy to understand.
Author Response
Dear sir,
I have rewritten the manuscript and the new sections have been highlighted.
I have used the MDPI English Editing service to review the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments and suggestions are as follows:
1) on line 122 there is an open quotation mark without closing,
2) Figure 4 is not an image or diagram, it is just text,
3) if in model was applied acceleration only in the period of 10 seconds, in my opinion on the figure 7 should be only presented acceleration in this time,
4) figure 8 and table 3, why did you make the isolation parameters dependent on the shear modulus, but in table 3 You present Modulus of elasticity (E)? Why You don’t use relation between E of isolation and E of rock ? But, if You use relation between Giso and Grock, why You didn’t show in table 3 the values of G?
And next problem, if You depend G of isolate material on rock, You should also write something about changes of bulk modulus (K).
5) In table 3, modulus of elasticity of rock is 25000, but 0.4 % from 6 GPa is 24MPa, and for 0.2% is 12 MPa not 12,5 MPa,
6) in result and discussion, what does mean “absolute stress”, is it one of principal stresses, or value calculated on the base of stress tensor?
7) could You more clearly explain what does mean values of “absolute stresses” expressed in percentages in table 5 for example “(52: 66) %”
8) for what time of calculation period (10 seconds) You present results? After end of period or at the moment of highest impact?
9) Figures 9b and 10 are the same.
10) Figure 9.a – what is “transverse stresses”, it should be explain. And from which points in the model this results were collected.
11) Figure 11 – what values correspond to the color blue, in the figure is lack of legend.
12) What about plasticity zone around tunnel? How the elasticity parameters of isolation influences on dimensions of plasticity zones?
Author Response
Dear sir,
I have rewritten the manuscript and the new sections have been highlighted.
I have used the MDPI English Editing service to review the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
a more extensive analysis of the seismic data has to be provided.
As uch the study is without real significance.
yours
reviewer H
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English editing required
Author Response
I have done almost all comments you required.
I have use English editing service from MDPI but you required more Enhancement.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It can be accept in the current version.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It can be accept in the current version.
Author Response
I have done everything.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The corrections have been made. The article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
I have done everything
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors,
I can see that you have added lots of required corrections.
Therefore, I recommended your manuscriipt for publication in Infrastructures.
yours
Hans-Balder Havenith
