Long-Distance Freezing Design and Construction Based on Monitoring Analysis of Subway Connection Aisle
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear colleagues, thank you for the interesting engineering work. I recommend it for publication in its current form. The only remark, if possible, is to indicate in the Project Profile section that the soil was homogeneous and also indicate the presence or absence of salinity in the soil and groundwater. It is best to bring the electrical conductivity of groundwater and soil paste. In the future, it is better to take into account the latent heat of the ice/water phase transition in the calculation. Most likely, it determines a sufficiently large temperature difference in delivery and returns pipelines in the first days of freezing (Fig. 11). Calculations for areas where salinization is likely should include the possibility of a significant decrease in the freezing temperature of the water-saturated stratum. The second important factor is the layering (common for river alluvium), when sands and gravel alternate with loams. Here, too, freezing can cause problems due to the redistribution of moisture and the loss of strength in sandy lenses.
Best regards, Reviewer
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English (mostly typos)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript presents an original and practical technology for freezing soil during the construction of a super-long connecting passage of the subway. The authors analyzed in detail existing approaches in this area.
The paper proposes an integrated approach to construction that solves the problems of planning a freezing station and transporting low-temperature brine over long distances.
Therefore, the paper is innovative in its field.
However, there are some clarifying questions.
1. The paper does not indicate whether the proposed methodology is general for all soils or whether it is applied to a specific type of soil.
2. How were the parameters of frozen soil strength indicated in Table 2 determined. This is an important question for subsequent research.
3. Using what experimental method was the dependence in Fig. 14 obtained? 4. Minor editing of English language required (Table 1. “Analyz the thickness …”
The paper is recommended for publication after minor clarifications.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper presents research study analyzing basic principles and critical technology of freezing design and construction of the long-distance stratum, based on on a subway engineering project with the synchronous construction of the frozen stratum excavation of the connection aisle, shield tunneling, and track laying.
Although presented article may be interesting to the readers of coatings journal, the paper may only be considered for publication after the following concerns have been addressed successfully in a major revision:
1) The title in my opinion needs some polishing. I suggest "Long-Distance Freezing Design and Construction based on Monitoring Analysis of Subway Connection Aisle" or "Long-Distance Freezing Design and Construction using Monitoring Analysis of Subway Connection Aisle" or something similar.
2) The entire text should be carefully read again by an English speaker and "polished up" due to some stylistic errors and numerous repetitions.
3) The introduction part needs some improvements. It should introduce the reader to the topic and problems related to the research that will lead into conclusion/thesis which will then be investigated in the paper. My question is what is new in this article compared to others of this type? What was the purpose for the study and what made it innovative or important? It would be a good idea to start the last paragraph with: "The purpose of this study..."
4) Chapters 2-3 should be merged into one chapter titled for example: "Theoretical/project background". Chapters 4-5 should constitute one chapter "Research study". Finally chapters 6-7 should be named as "Results and Discussion".
5) The section devoted to the results miss any comparison with other methods. In my opinion, no comprehensive evidence of optimization process was provided either. The whole paper look rather like a report than scientific research. It lacks scientific evaluation of the results and a detailed discussion. Please think about a comparison to other, similar kind od updates.
6) In my opinion, the summary also contains too few detailed results, especially comparative ones. There is also a lack of reference to what it was like before and what new research brings to this field. What is the significance of this manuscript in the context of the results obtained? What impact do the presented research results have on the possible future of designing this type of connections? The authors also forgot to mention what should be done next.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The entire text should be carefully read again by an English speaker and "polished up" due to some stylistic errors and numerous repetitions, especially in Abstract and Introduction parts.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this paper evaluated the problem of freezing in relation to subway construction. Overall, the manuscript is interesting and was well written. The paper has scientific contribution and is valuable for publication in Coatings journal. However, there are some important points to be clarified or completed. Therefore, at this time I recommend some major revisions before this paper will be ready for publication:
(1) Abstract. The abstract is not well written. Should precisely clarify the methodology as well and highlight the problem statement in macro and micro levels. Additionally, the main findings should be highlighted as well.
(2) Introduction. Generally, in the Introduction section, Authors may give emphasis to different viewpoints and conditionalities to validity in their review. This would provide an instructive presentation of review. In addition, the authors may also rearrange the reviews to accentuate the impact of their study. Please note, that the freezing phenomenon occurs at the level of the material's structure and is related to the transport of liquids in its mass. However, this problem was not well discussed in the introduction. Therefore, I recommend additional literature review (from MDPI database and others) and discussion of the results of the following work in the introduction section:
- „The effect of the addition of coal fly ash (CFA) on the control of water movement within the structure of the concrete”, Materials, 2023.
- „Freeze–thaw damage degradation model and life prediction of air-entrained concrete in multi-year permafrost zone”, Materials, 2023.
(3) Equations - The authors should indicate a bibliographic refernce for original form for all equations taken from the literature.
(4) Figures. Some of the figures are illegible. Please enlarge them.
(5) Photos. It is necessary to state where the photos included in the article come from, such as from Fig. 9. These are photos taken by the authors ? Nowadays, the issue of copyright is very important.
(6) Microstructure of the composites. The article lacks discussion of the microstructural aspects of the proposed method. It would be appropriate to provide at least a few sentences in this regard. The formulas themselves are insufficient.
(7) Conclusions. The “Conclusions” should be condensed and could be more informative by providing some specific results.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have significantly improved the manuscript. The paper is recommended for publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article looks much better now. My previous comments have been properly taken into account and in my opinion the article in its current form can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper is well revised. I have no further comments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
