Optimization of Rockburst Risk Control Measures for Deeply Buried TBM Tunnels: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Ms. Ref. No.: buildings-2385524
Title: Optimization of rockburst risk control measures for deeply buried TBM tunnels: a case study
Buildings
The paper presents an interesting paper related to rockburst risk control measures for TBM tunnels. The following notes were outlined:
1. Page 4: Soil and rock profile is required.
2. Page 5: What is the purpose of using uniaxial and triaxial sensors ?
3. In Table 1, how did you decide the time consuming and cost ?
4. The section between lines 231 and 240 can be moved to the “Introduction”.
5. Comparison of the rockburst method with other methods is required.
6. The “Conclusions” need some numerical values or percents.
No comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents the control measures for different intensity rockburst risks in the twin headrace tunnel of the N-J project. In addition, the rockburst warning method, warning effect and rockburst mitigation measures applied in twin headrace tunnels were analysed. It also concluded that in response to the potential extremely intense rockburst in the N-J project, some mitigation measures should be taken.
However, the reason and the effect for applying the proposed measures of N-J project are not given. In order to study which mitigation measures applied in N-J project is appropriate, this paper has analyse ninety-four rockburst mitigation cases were analysed, which is the greatest contribution of this paper. The following questions need to be considered before acceptance:
1. The photographs in the papers should be double checked.
2. The reasons or explanation why these mitigation measures are suggested applied in the project should be given in details.
3. The effect for the proposed measures applied in the project should be analysed through numerical analysis or other method.
n/a
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents a case study on seismic monitoring systems applied in a tunnel. The structures of the paper should clearly distinguish the results section that than should be discussed.
Overall scientific soundness is average although the presentation of monitoring results is satisfying. The authors are encouraged to improve or simply add more information on the instrumentation itself, such as presenting the working scheme of each system used.
The abstract should involve more specific conclusions deriving from the research. Please be more specific when referring to particular studies.
Do they all concern the Staffordshire case study (in line 40)? The introduction part needs clear identification of the aim and the objectives of the study. The scientific contribution should be emphasised. The authors do not refer to the knowledge gap that the research is fulfilling. Please specify what distinguishes the research from others available in the literature.
Figure 5 should be analysed, explained and discussed in more detail to give the reader enough information on the interpretation. The same goes for Figs 7 and 8 they should be explained and discussed in more detail to give a better understanding of the sequence of events.
The authors in line 304 refer to "good results", but it is not clear what it actually means, please be more specific and scientifically precise. In some parts (labels in figs, main text, tabs) the formatting is not appropriate, for details please refer to the reviewed copy of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 4 Report
The study presents a case study of optimization of rockburst risk control measures for deeply buried TBM tunnels. The results can be good references for construction of similar tunnel, but some revisions should be addressed. The point-to-point comments on the present manuscript are listed below.
1. The quality of English language should be improved.
2. Please clarify the innovations and highlights of this study.
3. Please provide more details about the MS system including field photos.
4. In Figure 3, please translate Chinese into English.
5. In Figure 5, what does the size of MS event circle represent? A scale of length can be added in the figure. In Figure 5(b), some words may be missing in the caption.
6. In Line 287, the “104” and “103” should be “104” and “103”.
The quality of English language should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy with the amendement, the paper can be considered for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors introduced many significant additions and corrections to the manuscript, and supplemented the literature. All review comments have been taken into account. The article is more readable and understandable. It presents a very interesting Case Study. I suggest accepting the article for publication in its present form. Only editorial and minor language corrections are required. Good luck!
