Performance of the Flexible and Rigid Lining under Earthquake Impact and Weakness of the New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) Principles, a Specific Case Study of the Bolu Tunnel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

 Point 1: Abstract the acronyms NATM which means? Review writing in abstract example 3 sentences begin with "During"

 Point 2: figure 1 which is stated on the axes, latitude and longitude? The same for Figure 5.

 Point 3: I suggest revising Figure 3, redoing it with some GIS (for example Arcgis, Qgis) that clearly shows the location of the study area, pointing out the location of the area selected for the study. to include incises to better describe the images in the description of the figure 3

 

Point 4: Lines 129-131. Where is shown this section of the tunes with the corresponding fault... does not refer to the figure... because further on there are only geological profiles...

 

Point 5. Fig. 5 Poor legend it is not possible to identify the previous elements commented on.

 Point 6. Fig. 6 It is not very legible the selection of colors and contrates used in the figure.

In addition to missing marginal information, North, scale, coordinates as a minimum to be able to estimate correspondence, sense and magnitude of the displacements in surface and faults identified in the aerosatelital photography...

 

Point 7. Fig. 7 Similar to the previous one... scale of the map... and its marginal information and date... that the relief changes constantly and even more after earthquakes of such magnitude.

 

Point 8. Line 230. Section 4. Perhaps make reference to whether the area of the cross section being drilled is modified or justify the reason for the use of different larger anchors and their distribution ... which responds to a geotechnical geological model with dynamic elements to support the displacements, as well as the diameters of the piles used in the tunnels.

 

Point 9. In lines 245-246 is said to As shown in Fig.11 and Fig.12, bench pilot tunnel method is very rigid 245 support system. Where is the structural or safety factor calculation that supports this statement?

 

Point 10. Fig 10. point out the placement of the anchors according to metric, geometry, etc... it is not clear the constructive procedure in this photo and only in the background someone on a crane trying to do something that is not identified either... as well as the collection of excavation material...???? if that is what you intend to visualize in the first photo

 

Point 11. Lines 259-262. revise wording and argue

 

Point 12. Fig 13 Missing geometric control marks at the base of the tunnel used as the geometry of the measurement control network.

 

Point 13. Lines 359-262. missing numbering of equations

 

Point 14. Please check the Table 1

 

Point 15. Check the lines 305-309, 336-337, 350-353, 384-395, lines 406-425

 

Point 16. Lines 387-389. Line 399. It is not clear where you get the tunnel safety factor value of 9.34 and the calculation method used.

 

Review the following papers:

https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/abs/pii/S0040195109002431

https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s10950-021-10002-7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.

there are sentences and even paragraphs in another language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The manuscript is revised according to your comments. 

My answers are presented as below:

Point 1: Abstract the acronyms NATM which means? Review writing in abstract example 3 sentences begin with "During"

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. I revised the 3 sentences and also added to NATM means

 Point 2: figure 1 which is stated on the axes, latitude and longitude? The same for Figure 5.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The figures are revised.

 Point 3: I suggest revising Figure 3, redoing it with some GIS (for example Arcgis, Qgis) that clearly shows the location of the study area, pointing out the location of the area selected for the study. to include incises to better describe the images in the description of the figure 3

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. I revised the Figure 3.

 

Point 4: Lines 129-131. Where is shown this section of the tunes with the corresponding fault... does not refer to the figure... because further on there are only geological profiles...

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. I added another Figure for Bakacak fault.

 

Point 5. Fig. 5 Poor legend it is not possible to identify the previous elements commented on.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Figure 5 is revised .

 Point 6. Fig. 6 It is not very legible the selection of colors and contrates used in the figure.

In addition to missing marginal information, North, scale, coordinates as a minimum to be able to estimate correspondence, sense and magnitude of the displacements in surface and faults identified in the aerosatelital photography...

 Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Figure 6 is revised .

 

Point 7. Fig. 7 Similar to the previous one... scale of the map... and its marginal information and date... that the relief changes constantly and even more after earthquakes of such magnitude.

 Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Figure 7 is removed. Another figure is inserted as Figure 4 which shows the Bakacak fault and Bolu Tunnel alignment.

 

Point 8. Line 230. Section 4. Perhaps make reference to whether the area of the cross section being drilled is modified or justify the reason for the use of different larger anchors and their distribution ... which responds to a geotechnical geological model with dynamic elements to support the displacements, as well as the diameters of the piles used in the tunnels.

 

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comment. Section 4, paragraph 1  is revised according to the your comments. Also in chapter 4.1, the support systems are given in detail.

 

Point 9. In lines 245-246 is said to As shown in Fig.11 and Fig.12, bench pilot tunnel method is very rigid 245 support system. Where is the structural or safety factor calculation that supports this statement?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. In this manuscript, the stability analysis with the FE element methods is not investigated. My main goal in this paper is to show the support class differences.

 

Point 10. Fig 10. point out the placement of the anchors according to metric, geometry, etc... it is not clear the constructive procedure in this photo and only in the background someone on a crane trying to do something that is not identified either... as well as the collection of excavation material...???? if that is what you intend to visualize in the first photo

Answer: Thank you for your valuable comment. In this Figure, I want to show the Bernold lining installation procedure. Also, you are right, this figure is not clear. So, I revised the Figure. Thanks for your review.

 

Point 11. Lines 259-262. revise wording and argue

Thank you very much fot your valuable comment. This paragraph is revised as below

“Both methods (Bernold lining and bench pilot tunnels) is opposite to the NATM principles. Because these two lining methods is aiming to mitigate the occurring deformations during the tunnel excavation. Also, there was no collapse or failure in fault zone or flyschoide series during the earthquake where these methods applied. The tunnel support principle should be a rigid system to prevent the deformation under the conditions of weak ground- large cross section. Otherwise, the deformation would not be stabilized. In the Bolu tunnel applications, it has seen that NATM principles were failed, therefore all the assumptions and design philosophy were changed. This situation has shown a very important point for the NATM tunnelling and needs to be revised.”

 

Point 12. Fig 13 Missing geometric control marks at the base of the tunnel used as the geometry of the measurement control network.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

The deformation points were applied in tunnel as shown in Fig. 13. There is no any point in the invert base level.

 

Point 13. Lines 359-262. missing numbering of equations

 Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. It is corrected.

 

Point 14. Please check the Table 1

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. It is corrected.

 

Point 15. Check the lines 305-309, 336-337, 350-353, 384-395, lines 406-425

 Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. It is corrected. The paragraphs with the other language are removed in the paper.

 

Point 16. Lines 387-389. Line 399. It is not clear where you get the tunnel safety factor value of 9.34 and the calculation method used.

 Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The calculation of the safety factor is given.

Review the following papers:

https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/abs/pii/S0040195109002431

https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s10950-021-10002-7

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

 English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible.

there are sentences and even paragraphs in another language

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

The language is corrected and revised. Also paragraphs with other language is removed in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Review Report

Journal Title: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Paper ID: sustainability-2588219

Paper title: Evaluation of tunnel performance in earthquakes, Is it a flexible or a rigid lining? Criticism of New Austrian Tunneling Method, Bolu Tunnel example

Comments:

1. The title should be changed to be strong in the field of the paper research

2. In abstract the authors should provide the highlight of this study.

3. What are the advantages of employed methodology?

4. What software or coding program was used to obtain the numerical results?

5. Authors should explain more about the novelty of their work in introduction section.

6. The authors need to explain that their methodology used in the rpaper is one of the appropriate solutions in the context of the research problem. The authors should try to give advantageous of using of their penetration model compared to others. What are the achievements of previous studies based on their current methodology? Also, describe what has not been achieved?

7. There are many research papers study the same problem which investigated in the present paper, such as

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1139/T08-087

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103334

What is exactly the new point of this work?

8. The conclusions should be clear and re-written; it must be enriched about discussion on studied problem.

9. The applicability of the NATM method is not clear and needs to be clarified in depth in the contribution

10. The ffect of the Düzce Earthquake to the tunnel is not clear and needs to be clarified in depth in the contribution

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

My answers are presented below.

Comments:

1. The title should be changed to be strong in the field of the paper research

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The title changed as

“Performance of the flexible and rigid lining under earthquake impact and weakness of the new Austrian tunneling method (NATM) principles, a specific case study in Bolu tunnel”

2. In abstract the authors should provide the highlight of this study.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Abstract is revised.as given below.

Abstract: Bolu Tunnel is located between the Istanbul-Ankara Highway and its construction took approximately 13 years. Since the beginning of the tunnel excavation, serious deformations and stability problems had been encountered. The basis of the problems encountered during the tunnel excavation is the geological units that the tunnel passes through are very weak and the fault lines cut the tunnel located. The fault lines pass through the secondary faults in the seismically active North Anatolian Fault. During these fault crossings, deformations occurred continuously so that revisions were made in the support systems. 12 November 1999 Düzce earthquake occurred on the Düzce fault and 40 km long- surface rupture was formed. The rupture terminated 1.5 km west of the tunnel, it didn’t reach to the tunnel. Throughout the earthquake, collapse occurred on the areas excavated on the fault line at the entrance of Elmalık and where the deformations exceeded to 1.0 m, this section of the tunnel had to be abandoned. After this problems, new support design improved for tunnel excavation. New support systems which are Bernold lining, and bench pilot tunnel systems contain rigid lining that are opposite of New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) principles. Within the scope of this study, the causes of the collapse in the tunnel is investigated and the effect of the Düzce Earthquake to the tunnel is to be discussed. Also, the applicability of the NATM method in tunnels excavated on weak zones is also be discussed.

3. What are the advantages of employed methodology?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.  According to this methodology, the support design philosophy in the weak ground is offered to change to rigid lining that is opposite of the NATM principles. Also, in the paper is insisted that, the earthquake effect is not very serious where the inner lining completed. So, in the fault zone, the ring closure time should be as possible as minimum duration, also after completed ring closure, the inner lining concrete should be installed without loosing any time. The reason of the collapse is not mainly earthquake effect because the tunnel was not stabilized and the deformation trends continue before the earthquake.

4. What software or coding program was used to obtain the numerical results?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The numerically analyses didn’t carried out in this study.

5. Authors should explain more about the novelty of their work in introduction section.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The ıntrodcuiton section is revised according to your comment.

6. The authors need to explain that their methodology used in the rpaper is one of the appropriate solutions in the context of the research problem. The authors should try to give advantageous of using of their penetration model compared to others. What are the achievements of previous studies based on their current methodology? Also, describe what has not been achieved?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The introduction section is revised as according to your comments.

7. There are many research papers study the same problem which investigated in the present paper, such as

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1139/T08-087

https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103334

Answer: Thank you very mush for your valuable comment. First paper (Kontoe et al. 2008) was already in references.

Second paper Tsinidis et al. (2020) were read and reviews and also added to the references.

What is exactly the new point of this work?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The main purpose of this study is to reveal the cause of collapse in tunnel. In addition,,to criticize NATM tunneling in weak ground.  

8. The conclusions should be clear and re-written; it must be enriched about discussion on studied problem.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The conclusion is revised.

9. The applicability of the NATM method is not clear and needs to be clarified in depth in the contribution

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. According to your comments, the paper is revised.

10. The ffect of the Düzce Earthquake to the tunnel is not clear and needs to be clarified in depth in the contribution

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.In section 6, the effects of the Düzce earthquake are given.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments: sustainability-2588219

In the current exploration, the authors investigate “Evaluation of tunnel performance in earthquakes, is it a flexible or a rigid lining? Criticism of new austrian tunneling method, bolu tunnel example”. This work seems to be interesting, original, and also well-developed. Figures are included for better improvisation. I recommend the publication after minor changes. My suggestions are listed below:

Ø  Add some very recent papers to enhance the introduction related to your study especially from the lubricants.

Ø  What is the main contribution addressed by you regarding the field?

Ø  Some of values are not visible in Table 1.

Ø  If possible add qualitative results in the abstract.

Add future direction at the end of the conclusion.

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

My answers are presented below.

Ø  Add some very recent papers to enhance the introduction related to your study especially from the lubricants.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The new references are added.

Ø  What is the main contribution addressed by you regarding the field?

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. In this study, the support design philosophy in the weak ground is offered to change to rigid lining that is opposite of the NATM principles. Also, in the paper is insisted that, the earthquake effect is not very serious where the inner lining completed. So, in the fault zone, the ring closure time should be as possible as minimum duration, also after completed ring closure, the inner lining concrete should be installed without loosing any time. The reason of the collapse is not mainly earthquake effect because the tunnel was not stabilized and the deformation trends continue before the earthquake.

Ø  Some of values are not visible in Table 1.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Table 1 is revised and corrected.

Ø  If possible add qualitative results in the abstract.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Abstract is revised.

Add future direction at the end of the conclusion.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Some comments add to the conclusion.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Regarding the work “Evaluation of tunnel performance in earthquakes, is it a flexible or a rigid lining? Criticism of new austrian tunneling method, bolu tunnel example”.

The following should be considered:

• On page 22 and 23 it is in a language other than English.

• The summary must be improved because it is ambiguous, in addition, it must contain more tangible data of the results obtained.

• A more in-depth vision must be offered, which addresses, reviews and analyzes the causes and effects of what it raises.

• The bibliography must be updated because there is little updated bibliography and it must be increased much more.

• Regarding the objective of the work, it should be highlighted; as well as the working hypothesis. On the other hand, emphasis should be given to the innovation of the work and its specific contribution, in addition, the methodology section should be improved and made clear, include the discussion of results, the conclusions should be improved.

• The conclusions do not agree with the working title and do not show the effects that it mentions.

• The formulas and present results should be discussed more in the text, and it is recommended to add tables with data that allow comparison and that are in an appropriate format,

• the figures need to be improved.

• include the specific geological setting of the region and briefly describe the main compression and extension tectonic strain.

It has paragraphs in a language other than English

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank your very much for your valuable comments.

My answers are presented below.

• On page 22 and 23 it is in a language other than English.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. It is removed in the paper.

• The summary must be improved because it is ambiguous, in addition, it must contain more tangible data of the results obtained.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. . Revisions are completed

• A more in-depth vision must be offered, which addresses, reviews and analyzes the causes and effects of what it raises.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. . Revisions are completed

• The bibliography must be updated because there is little updated bibliography and it must be increased much more.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Revisions are completed.

• Regarding the objective of the work, it should be highlighted; as well as the working hypothesis. On the other hand, emphasis should be given to the innovation of the work and its specific contribution, in addition, the methodology section should be improved and made clear, include the discussion of results, the conclusions should be improved.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

• The conclusions do not agree with the working title and do not show the effects that it mentions.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The title is changed.

• The formulas and present results should be discussed more in the text, and it is recommended to add tables with data that allow comparison and that are in an appropriate format,

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. . Revisions are completed

• the figures need to be improved.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments..The figures which are not clear are revised.

• include the specific geological setting of the region and briefly describe the main compression and extension tectonic strain.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, it was difficult to identify where you made the changes in your manuscript. I suggest for future works to highlight your corrections.

Your work has improved considerably, but I suggest you read it again, paying attention to the details I left in the notes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. You can find the manuscript with track changes. 

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Regarding the work “Performance of the flexible and rigid lining under earthquake impact and weakness of the new Austrian tunneling method (NATM) principles, a specific case study in Bolu tunnel”.

The following should be considered:

• The bibliography must be updated because there is little updated bibliography and it must be increased.

• Discussion should be added.

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The manuscript was revised according to your comments. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Best regards

 

The bibliography must be updated because there is little updated bibliography and it must be increased.

Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The references are increased from 46 to 68. Before revision, references were 46, after revision the references are increased to 68.

 

Discussion should be added.

Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Discussion is added to the manuscript.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language require

Answer: Dear reviewer, Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The manuscript language is edited.