Reliability Analysis on Multiple Failure Modes of Underground Chambers Based on the Narrow Boundary Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The article needs to be proofread. There are quite a lot of instances of grammatical errors, run-on sentences and inappropriate expressions. For example, on Line 2 in Section 1 “the use of subterranean space…….development strategy, this resulting in a large number…..” is clearly a run-on sentence. The “this” should be omitted.
2. Please enlarge Figure 1 (a) and show all the labels clearly.
3. The reviewer believe that Section 4 on calculations are based on existing studies, e.g., [21, 25, 26]. In this regard, what are the novelty and contributions? The reviewer has this impression because references 25 & 26 cannot be found online. As a result, it is quite challenging for the reviewer to review the derivation and the novelty presented in Section 4 (although the derivations are presumably based on geometry). The authors should clear separate and indicate the derivations that have been reported in the literature from the derivations that are new in the field.
4. A table of nomenclature, symbol and alphabet are needed. There are quite a lot of symbols not shown in any figure or explained in the text.
5. Some references are needed for table 2 to support the validity of the values chosen.
6. Section 6.1 and 6.2 are disconnected. The results in Section 6.1 and 6.2 are not compared, so it is not clear what are the advantages associated with the consideration of parameter randomness. Some comments on (i) the effects of parameter randomness, (ii) and the practical significant associated with the inclusion of randomness, should be provided.
Author Response
- The article needs to be proofread. There are quite a lot of instances of grammatical errors, run-on sentences and inappropriate expressions. For example, on Line 2 in Section 1 “the use of subterranean space…….development strategy, this resulting in a large number…..” is clearly a run-on sentence. The “this” should be omitted.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the experts for their insightful counsel. Proofreading has been done on the entire paper, and examples of grammatical mistakes, sentence fragments, and unsuitable expression have been changed.
- Please enlarge Figure 1 (a) and show all the labels clearly.
Response: For clear presentation, the graphic size and font size in Figure 1(a) have both been properly enlarged.
- The reviewer believe that Section 4 on calculations are based on existing studies, e.g., [21, 25, 26]. In this regard, what are the novelty and contributions? The reviewer has this impression because references 25 & 26 cannot be found online. As a result, it is quite challenging for the reviewer to review the derivation and the novelty presented in Section 4 (although the derivations are presumably based on geometry). The authors should clear separate and indicate the derivations that have been reported in the literature from the derivations that are new in the field.
Response: In Section 4.1, it was mentioned that the failure mode of underground chambers proposed in reference [12] did not consider the comprehensive influence of pore water and nonlinear characteristics of geotechnical materials, and the results often had a certain deviation from the actual engineering. In order to overcome this shortcoming, the basic requirements of the upper bound theorem are combined in the paper. The failure mechanism is established based on considering the pore water effect and the nonlinearity of geotechnical materials. Furthermore, the DOI of the literature has been provided in the paper references to help specialists look for relevant information.
- A table of nomenclature, symbol and alphabet are needed. There are quite a lot of symbols not shown in any figure or explained in the text.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the experts for their valuable advice. The significance of the professional symbols used in this paper has been clarified throughout the text, and they have been explained when they first occur in Sections 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, several professional nouns were just substituted with symbols in the subsequent results analysis, while for the professional nouns that might affect the reading of the paper a clear explanation was also provided in the results analysis.
- Some references are needed for table 2 to support the validity of the values chosen.
Response: Relevant literature has been quoted in the paper to supplement the foundation of parameter values in Table 2. For details, see the red part marked in Section 6.2.1.
- Section 6.1 and 6.2 are disconnected. The results in Section 6.1 and 6.2 are not compared, so it is not clear what are the advantages associated with the consideration of parameter randomness. Some comments on (i) the effects of parameter randomness, (ii) and the practical significant associated with the inclusion of randomness, should be provided.
Response: The benefits of taking parameter randomness into account have been demonstrated using examples in this paper, and the practical significance of considering parameter randomness has been clarified by comparing results with those that ignored parameter randomness. See Section 6.2.2 in red for details.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Please consider the following comments/suggestions:
Page 1, Abstract: Correct the grammar in the first sentence: “In order to comprehensively study the stability of underground chambers under the influence of nonlinear characteristics of rock and soil mass and the pore water.”
Maybe begin with: “This study propose to comprehensively study…”.
Page 3, Specify the meaning of the symbols σij, T, and Fi in relation (2).
Page 3, relation (7). Verify if the power of the penultimate term should be (α/1-α), not (1/1-α).
Page 4, figure 1b. Verify if in the formula of the angle formed by the V3 velocity vector and V34 , the last term should be α3, not α2.
Page 5: Close the bracket (parenthesis) to relation (15). Idem page 6, the bracket to relation (39) is not closed at the end of the line.
Page 9, Section 5, First paragraph, line 5: There are 2 references to Table 2, instead of Table 1.
Page 15, Section 6.2.4, line 7: „Fig. 7 (a) to 8 (d) show…” probably should be „Fig. 7 (a) to 7 (d) show…”.
Best regards,
A reviewer
Author Response
- Page 1, Abstract: Correct the grammar in the first sentence: “In order to comprehensively study the stability of underground chambers under the influence of nonlinear characteristics of rock and soil mass and the pore water.” Maybe begin with: “This study propose to comprehensively study…”.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the experts for their valuable advice. This sentence in the summary has been amended, seeing the area in the abstract that is highlighted in red.
- Page 3, Specify the meaning of the symbols σij, Ti, and Fi in relation (2).
Response: The explanations of the professional terms σij, Ti and Fi have been added in this paper. See Section 2 in red.
- Page 3, relation (7). Verify if the power of the penultimate term should be (α/1-α), not (1/1-α).
Response: Equation (7) has been validated in accordance with published literature [30, 31], and the formulation used in this paper is accurate.
- Page 4, figure 1(b). Verify if in the formula of the angle formed by the v3 velocity vector and v34, the last term should be α3, not α2.
Response: Figure 1 (b) has been verified and modified.
- Page 5: Close the bracket (parenthesis) to relation (15). Idem page 6, the bracket to relation (39) is not closed at the end of the line.
Response: The parentheses of equations (15) and (39) have been verified and modified.
- Page 9, Section 5, First paragraph, line 5: There are 2 references to Table 2, instead of Table 1.
Response: Table 1 has been substituted for Table 2 in Section 5. For information, see Section 5 in red.
- Page 15, Section 6.2.4, line 7: „Fig. 7 (a) to 8 (d) show…” probably should be „Fig. 7 (a) to 7 (d) show…”.
Response: It has been modified. For details, see Section 6.2.4 in red.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well written.
Introduction section needs to be shortened.
Kindly add error bars in the figures.
Conclusion section is very lengthy. It needs to be shortened.
Author Response
1、Introduction section needs to be shortened.
Response: The introduction has been appropriately condensed, seeing Section 1 for further details.
2、Kindly add error bars in the figures.
Response: Error bars have been added in Figure 3.
3、Conclusion section is very lengthy. It needs to be shortened.
Response: The conclusions have been appropriately reduced, seeing Section 7 for more information.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
nil
