Probabilistic Stability Analysis of Deep Rock Tunnel Excavated by Mechanized Tunneling Considering Anisotropic Initial Stresses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a significant matter regarding tunnel design, the effect of anisotropic. The researches present a probabilistic approach to account for the uncertainty regarding lining parameters and probability of failure.

There are some questions that arose from the manuscript:

1) How is the parameter epsilon_v defined in terms of lambda?

2) Why lambda was first deterministically varied from 0.66 to 1.2 and later the distribution function took 0.66 as mean?

3) It seems, based on the results from section 3.3.3 that the effect of lambda is negligible rather than moderate, is this result related to the definition of volumetric strain or equivalent stress, or the range selected for lambda?

4) what is the accuracy expected using 5000 samples in each subset?

5) It seems, based on figure 7, that results are actually more dependent on stresses rather than lambda, how do you account for this in the conclusions?

Author Response

All is included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a work with huge potential. However, the paper needs a significant improvement and more meaningful analysis. Few plots, few explanations, and little depth in the analysis were presented. The recommendation is to do a thorough work on improving this document, extend the analysis, and resubmit it once it is clearly better than the current version. It would be nice the authors indicate in their references how this work aligns with the main topics of this journal

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All is included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is very interesting

 

Author Response

All is included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please consider these comments to make your paper more didactic and easy to follow:

- Include a flow diagram of all the processes developed for your work

- Explicit numerical models and details, if any

- In the tables, please add columns with more context, explaining the reasons of why you chose those numbers. For instance, in table 1, there could be a column saying "typical values", and another column saying "explanation of the value selected". If this table was presented in landscape, it would be very nice. Please extend this, if applicable, to the other tables

- Consider that you are working with p0=6.8 MPa is -roughly- 340 m depth. Depending on the geoenvironment you are, at that depth, k0 can be easily way over 1, particularly in areas with mountains. In what part of the world are you setting your work?

Thanks for taking the time to address these considerations,

Author Response

The answer to reviewers is included in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Better than initial submission