Study on the Mechanism and Prevention Method of Frozen Wall Maldevelopment Induced by High-Flow-Rate Groundwater
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors have studied the mechanism of maldevelopment of frozen wall induced by groundwater by model testing, and proposed optimization schemes for freezing temperature field of single- and multi- circle holes. They also investigated the effect of optimization schemes by using the numerical calculation method.
The paper is well organized, and the subject is relevant to the scope of the journal. However, it needs to be revised before acceptance.
- Please add the units in Fig. 1.
- Please add a legend for the contour plots in Fig. 8.
- The authors should clearly mention limitations and weaknesses of the proposed optimization schemes for in the manuscript.
- It is recommended that the authors calculate and present the differences (in percent) for the comparisons carried out in the manuscript (for example, Section 3.2.2).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with an interesting topic, and it is well organized, so it needs only few modifications to be published, according to my point of view. On the first I suggest to introduce a figure at paragraph 2.1, where it is described the model test. I mean it is necessary to input a geometrical scheme of the model, with the metrics of every element composing the model. I know authors have been represented in Figure 2 the model scheme, but there are no measures. On the other hand there is some confusion on porous media. Which is the average size of the involved sands? The proposed Velocities for groundwater flow rate doesn't fit with the hydraulic conductivity of most sands. Finally I can't understand why the verbs in the paper are at the past..
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I was happy to read your article, which deals with a very interesting issue. I think the article has the potential to become a good scientific article in the field of underground construction. However, before the article is ready for publication, I think you can complete it or answer some of my questions:
(1) Model test design: I suggest that you already refer to Figures 1 and 2 here, without pictures this description is hard to imagine
(2) I suggest that you dedicate a few more sentences to the method of measuring velocity, if I understood correctly you measure velocity at inflow and outflow?
(3) I think the term inflow is more appropriate than inlet and outflow than the outlet.
(4) Freezing system: you mention that in the real problem CaCl2 was used and in the test case alcohol, but in table 4 it does not look like that.
(5) Describe the T measurement system (optical cables or something else), their accuracy, and precision?
(6) What does NMR mean?
(7) Table 6 is not entirely clear to me, especially in the context of the previous text
(8) Figure 4 is not clear, it is also necessary to supplement the legend or description of what the images above the bar graph mean
(9) lines 1178 to 191, but what is the relationship between pipelines and water?
(10) Equation 6 quote source!
(11) Among other things, I am also interested in what material you used?
(12) The graphs in Figure 7 refer to the sensors in Figure 1?
(13) Lines 270 to 279 do not say anything about the influence of the density of the network of T sensors on the results ???
(14) Lines 310 to 316 diagram or figure?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
According to my opinion, the article is now on the level required for publication in a scientific journal!
Author Response
Thanks for your comments.
