Numerical Simulation and Engineering Application of Temporary Stress Field in Coal Mine Roadway
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting and worthy of investigation. Despite many years of research into the stability of underground workings, a reliable solution has yet to be found. The gap in rock mechanics studies related to this problem is still not resolved.
My main concern of the reviewer is related to the verification of the modeling results. In the text, the sentence appears: “The stress diffusion model of temporary support is constructed and its correctness is verified.” This is the only instance where the word "verification" is mentioned. There is no further information about controlling measurements or validation of the model against observed data. Without this, the investigation presents only a theoretical approach. Simply stating that the system works properly does not sufficiently support the thesis about the modeled distribution of strains in the rock masses.
Additionally, the assumed values for the temporary support area and unsupported area, totaling less than 17 meters (L1+L2), are presented as theoretical. Why 17 meters and not 16 meters? Verification based on reliable, measured values is crucial for proving the accuracy of the modeled results. I would suggest adding verification part to the mansucript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
This study presents research focused on a numerical analysis of a rapid tunneling system in coal mine roadways to design and optimize cutting parameters.
For all figures, tables, and equations, it would be helpful to position them within the text body, aligned to the right, except in cases where larger elements may be centered across the entire page. It is unnecessary to occupy space every time if it is not required.
On page 5, in the Introduction section (“Introduction to the Rapid Tunneling System and Area Division”), various systems are referenced without corresponding images. I suggest these systems be illustrated by simplifying Figure 1, making it suitable for inclusion in this section.
I believe the paper could be improved, especially in the results section, where explanations appear limited, and the optimization process remains unclear. Only two scenarios are presented with a single modification between them. Expanding the study to at least two additional scenarios with more substantial parameter changes might be beneficial.
The figure captions for several images do not adhere to the required format as specified in the authors’ guidelines (regarding font size and positioning). Additionally, the bibliography does not need to be spaced at 1.5 lines, as this is unnecessary, though it should still be reviewed for format compliance.
Notable Aspects:
The paper includes approximately 100 bibliographic references, demonstrating thorough documentation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I have read your work, and I have the following comments and changes to propose:
1) The first sentence of the introduction is the same as the abstract. It will be better to modify it somewhat.
2) Your text needs a linguistic revision there many unclear sentences and sentences with repeated words.
e.g. In the last paragraph of page 4: "First, we...the direction of excavation."
In page 5 in the section2: "The temporary support area is directly supported by the temporary support"
...
In conclusion: "The study observed that the temporary support force initially increases with height and then decreases as height continues to increase."
3) Avoid using sentences in first person (We, I, our, my, mine, etc)
4) Figure captions are not in the correct format (you have used a big font size with 1,5 lines).
5) I disagree with the term stress diffusion. The word diffusion is misleading in terms of the existence of fluids.
6) This system has been presented in other works you can use as a source, or if it is the first time, you must give more details and photos.
7) Equation numbering to the right of the page.
8) I can't see how the model mentioned above was used in this section, so I suggest transferring section 6 into section 2 (see comment 6) and changing the title.
9) To compare field applications with your model, you can add actual measurements into the respective figures of the results.
10) You have used an impressive number of references, but I noticed you only used Chinese (or Asians in general) citations. It would be good if you also included references from other regions.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I'm not an expert in English, but your manuscript needs a good linguistic revision (see comment 2).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Firstly thank you for your feedback!
The authors have responded point by point to almost all of my comments and the scientific quality of the paper has been improved according to all reviewers’ observations and that is better approaching of the journal exigencies.
Author Response
We would like to thank for the valuable comments, which have greatly improved the quality of this work. I wish you good health and success in your work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I agree with the modifications that you have made and I will suggest you some additional minor modifications:
a) Line 146: ...mathematical model of eq. (3).
b) Fix the caption of Figure 3.
c) Figure 12a: Start with capital letter the vertical axis label for 12(a) and
d) Figure 12b: strains are dimensionless or change the vertical title in Roof convergence (or displacements).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
