Research on Safety Design Strategy of Evacuation Stairs in Deep Underground Station Based on Human Heart Rate and Ascending Evacuation Speed
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
This paper has a novel idea to the extent of implementing HR and fatigue to examine the evacuation speed and impacts.
Regards,
Evan
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor English and formatting required to have a good presentation.
Author Response
尊敬的审稿人，
非常感谢您对我们题为“基于人体心率和疏散上升速度的深部地铁站疏散楼梯安全设计”（ID：sustainability-2424998）的稿件的仔细阅读和深思熟虑的评论。我们已仔细研究了各位的意见，并尽力根据论文中MS Word“跟踪修改”功能标记的意见修改了稿件，并重新提交供您参考。
对审稿人意见的回复见附件。请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The title of the manuscript does not sufficiently correspond to the content of the publication, as it is primarily a description of the experimental procedure, and detailed analysis of the results of the experiment and the numerical model. "Safety design" is a design concept, not a description of its implementation. In the chapter Conclusion, the authors use the statement, in line 385 “safety design strategy…” which is a better term.
Similarly, abstract does not sufficiently match the content of the publication.
However, the keywords were chosen correctly.
The publication contains a very good justification for the choice of research topic. The description of the research is correct. It contains a detailed presentation of the experiment, the created model, and the concept of the project.
The method of solving the problem was chosen correctly.
The experiment was very well planned and conducted, however, it did not involve a very large group of respondents. In addition, the results were differentiated only by the gender. The agee was not a variable, which in the real evacuation may have a large impact on its course and it should be expected that the location of "rest areas", considering the age, would be different. Therefore, an added value would be a comment to what extent, or if at all, the "age" variable affects the proposed model and design concept.
Despite this fact, the obtained research results are very valuable, and the method of determining the correlation between the variables reflects the relationships between them very well.
Chapter 4.2. describes the concept well. Its title "safety design of evacuation stars" should better reflect the actual content (which is the concept of the solution, not the project), specifying "rest areas" as a distinguishing feature of the proposed solution.
The publication contains minor errors:
Line 320 should be: ….an overall understanding…
Line 384 should be….On this basis, a safety…
The publication contains minor errors:
Line 320 should be: ….an overall understanding…
Line 384 should be….On this basis, a safety…
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to your careful reading and thoughtful comments on our manuscript entitled “Safety design of evacuation stairs in deep underground station based on human heart rate and ascending evacuation speed” (ID: sustainability-2424998). We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments which marked by the “Track Changes” function in MS word in the paper, and would like to resubmit it for your consideration.
The responds to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1) The authors may want to divide Introduction section into two sections: "introduction" and "background" sections.
2) The authors should include information about the "scientific research ethics committee" and "informed consent form"
3) Please discuss the limitations of the study in detail.
4) Please discuss the future studies in detail
5) Please make the letters readable in Figures 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Minor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to your careful reading and thoughtful comments on our manuscript entitled “Safety design of evacuation stairs in deep underground station based on human heart rate and ascending evacuation speed” (ID: sustainability-2424998). We have studied the comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments which marked by the “Track Changes” function in MS word in the paper, and would like to resubmit it for your consideration.
The responds to the reviewer’s comments are in the attachment. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
