PONE-D-24-45489Study on surface deformation caused by shield tunnel excavation caused by coarse particle content in strongly weathered rock formationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The review process is now completed and we have three reports submitted by anonymous reviewers. As can be seen from their reports, all reviewers request revision beforethis manuscript is reviewed again. Thus, I invite you for a substantial revision.

If you have any questions or need further clarification on the revisions required, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am here to assist you throughout this process.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Meanwhile, I want to thank the reviewers for their great efforts on your manuscript and you for your submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 26 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linwei Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details about the origin of samples used in this study including location.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [Te research was supported by the Funded by Discipline Innovation team of Liaoning Technical University (No.LNTU20TD08). We appreciate the editor and anonymous reviewers’ useful comments.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The authors received no specific funding for this work]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Taking Pazhou Branch shield tunnel project in Pearl River Delta as an example, this paper analyzes the influence of coarse grain content in heavily weathered rock on the mechanical properties of heavily weathered rock, and studies the influence of coarse grain content on the surface loss caused by tunnel shield excavation. By comparing Peck formula with random medium theory, a large number of Peck empirical parameters are transformed into random medium theory parameters, which expands the application range of random medium theory in engineering. At the same time, considering the coarse particle content in the heavily weathered rock, the Peck formula was analyzed by linear regression, and the maximum settlement correction coefficient and subsidence width correction coefficient β were introduced to modify the Peck formula. This is an interesting paper, logically rigorous and well-organized, which should be considered for publication, but the following minor revisions should be made before publication:

1. Although the paper includes curves, the horizontal and vertical axes should be labeled according to the journal's template.

2. The hysteresis loop in Figure 4 is not distinct, so it is recommended to enlarge it for clarity.

3. All tables in this paper should be formatted according to the journal's template.

4. It is recommended to use a formula editor when writing formulas, and ensure that variables and symbols within the formulas are italicized or not.

5. As observed in Figure 10, the revised theoretical calculation results presented in this paper are significantly higher than the unrevised results, indicating a large error. Please further verify the calculations.

6. The conclusion section is overly verbose, so it is suggested to condense it into three paragraphs.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript titled "Study on surface deformation caused by shield tunnel excavation caused by coarse particle content in strongly weathered rock formations" contributes to the understanding of how geological composition, specifically coarse particle content, affects tunneling-induced surface deformation and provides improved tools for predicting these effects in strongly weathered rock formations. The content is interesting and can contribute to the rock engineering. However, the current version of this manuscript should be improved for publication. Please see my comments below:

1. First, all the formats should be consistent. The font should consistent and make it more readability, especially for the subtitle. The font in the figures should be enlarged and the fonts should be consistent with the text of the manuscript. The table titles should move above the table. The authors should make the figures clearer.

2. The title is repetitive with "caused by" appearing twice. Please revise the title.

3. In the Abstract section, the abstract is quite long and please reduce it for better readability.

4. “At the same time, the linear regression analysis of Peck's formula is carried out by considering the content of coarse particles in the strongly weathered rock layer, and the regressed linear function is fitted to the measured data with different coarse particles content, and the maximum surface The maximum subsidence correction coefficient � and the sinkhole width correction coefficient β were introduced to correct the formula, and finally the reliability of the formula derived in this paper was verified.” This sentence in the abstract is too long and is awkwardly phrased. Please revise it for clarity.

5. In the Introduction, the literature review is comprehensive, but it could benefit from a clearer structure. And the research gap could be more explicitly stated at the end of the introduction. Additionally, the outline of the manuscript also should be added at the end of the introduction.

6. The literature review appears to be somewhat limited in scope. Including more diverse studies could provide a more comprehensive background and better context for your research. For example: Combined effects of fault geometry and roadway cross-section shape on the collapse behaviors of twin roadways: An experimental investigation; Risk assessment of ground collapse along tunnels in karst terrain by using an improved extension evaluation method.

7. The methodology is not clear introduced in the manuscript for replicability.

8. For the equations, please ensure all variables are defined immediately after each equation.

9. The transition between the Peck formula and random medium theory could be smoother. Consider adding a brief paragraph explaining why both methods are being used.

10. Explain why only two cross-sections were chosen for analysis. Are these representative of the entire tunnel?

11. There are occasional grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. For example, "Te research was supported by..." in the Acknowledgements should be "The research was supported by..." . Some sentences are overly long and complex. Consider breaking them into shorter, clearer statements.

12. For the references, ensure all DOIs are correctly formatted and active and the format should be consistent.

Reviewer #3: (1) The title is not fluent, and its meaning is unclear.

(2) Abstract: The word count is excessive, and the content is overly detailed, requiring condensation. The expression needs refinement, and phrases such as "the author" should be avoided.

(3) The sections of the paper are not numbered, making it appear disorganized and lacking in structure and logical flow. Additionally, the formatting of the equations is inconsistent, contributing to an overall lack of cohesion.

(4) The entire paper requires language refinement, as the expressions are inconsistent and unclear. Furthermore, the font style should be standardized, as exemplified by the inconsistent use of terms such as "strongly weathered rock" and "heavily weathered rock."

(5) “Research on a mathematical model of surface deformation of heavily weathered rock stratum in shield excavation”, the title of this section needs to be revised to better highlight the focus on the development and validation of the computational model.

(6) The structure of this paper is more like a thesis, as it is divided into three sections: the impact of coarse particle content on the mechanical properties of highly weathered rock layers, the effect of shield tunneling on ground loss, and the proposal of a computational model. However, these sections are disconnected and lack cohesion, making the paper feel disorganized and overly lengthy.

(7) Figure 3 and 6 require enhancement in terms of presentation. Some annotations in the figures are too small and unclear, and any unnecessary content should be removed from the charts.

(8) Tables 6 to 13 illustrate the calculation process for the fitted curves, comprising almost 8 pages of the manuscript. This extensive presentation is redundant and could be significantly condensed.

(9) How is the consistency between the fitted curve and the measured data reflected in Figure 9? Moreover, there is an inconsistency in the description of the settlement tank width in this section, a discrepancy that appears multiple times throughout the manuscript. This highlights the need for greater precision and consistency in the expression used within the paper.

(10) It’s good to cite these related papers in the introduction and to improve your expression referring to these papers�

� Soft computing approach for prediction of surface settlement induced by earth pressure balance shield tunneling

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2019.12.003

� Investigating Surface Deformation Caused by Excavation of Curved Shield in Upper Soft and Lower Hard Soil

https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.844969

� Ground and tunnel responses induced by partial leakage in saturated clay with anisotropic permeability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.02.005

� Seepage propagation simulation of a tunnel gasketed joint using the cohesive zone model

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2024.105726

� Time-varying compressive properties and constitutive model of EPDM rubber materials for tunnel gasketed joint

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136734

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-45489R1Study on surface deformation induced by shield excavation due to coarse particle content in strongly weathered rock layersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jia,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Linwei Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments from the Editorial Office on behalf of the Academic Editor:

We note that Reviewer 3 recommended that you cite specific previously published works in an earlier round of revision. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works and you may remove them before the manuscript proceeds to publication. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The responses to the comments are sufficient. The improvement of the manuscript is significant. Please consider accepting as is.

Reviewer #2: As the authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers, I have no further comments on this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Study on surface deformation induced by shield excavation due to coarse particle content in strongly weathered rock layers

PONE-D-24-45489R2

Dear Dr. Jia,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Linwei Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

None

Reviewers' comments: