Research on Dynamic Response and Construction Safety Countermeasures of an Adjacent Existing Line Foundation under the Influence of a New Railway Line
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the article is worthy of investigation. However, the following needs to be addressed:
1-The abstract should include the main results and conclusions. List the main ones by name.
2- Objectives should be clearly stated at the end of introduction or after the introduction section.
3- At the end of the introduction, it is important for adding the significant of this study.
4-For convenience, detail flow chart instead of simple one should be added for illustrating the research methodology and all used analysis.
5-The problem is not well organized, and the gap is unclear.
6-The contribution of this study is vague. The authors should clarify how this study contributes to the construction body of knowledge and how the findings of this study can benefit the construction industry practitioners.
7-The novelty with respect to the literature is not clear.
8-Discussion is weak, and the adding to the body of knowledge didn't define well
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article contains results that are valuable for science and practice, but there are a number of questions:
1. In the introduction, the authors analyzed articles published 10 years ago or more. I propose to expand the introduction of the article and conduct an additional analysis of several new articles in this scientific area:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875510017303232
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40534-020-00214-x
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10064-021-02555-1
2. On the y-axis, in fig. 7 not specified dimension of analysed value.
3. Vibration displacement of soils, in my opinion, this is a stochastic value, but fig. 5-7, it is indicated by dots. What are these dots? Is it the average of several measurements, or something else?
4. In fig. 7 & 13 I propose to indicate the dimensions of the quantities along all axes of the graph. In addition, I propose to control the font sizes in the figures. They must be the same. This will increase the aesthetic perception of the results and will meet the requirements of the journal.
5. Size fig. 14 is insufficient for its full analysis.
Author Response
"Please see Attachments"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents an interesting problem which has not been already widely covered by other researches. I find this article as important as it brings new views on the researched issue. In my opinion after some minor issues fixed, the paper will be ready to get published.
Below you can find some more or less specific comments.
In the introduction section authors do not mention potential climate change, that may influence the problem in the future. Are you taking them into account? Maybe a short passage – one or two sentence on the issue would be suitable.
The authors may consider introducing a map presenting the line and where the test were conducted. It would help readers unfamiliar with the subject.
I am not convinced the authors should mention Laptop or Desktop PC in Table 1, as it seems a bit obvious, that they used them.
The authors received some very interesting results, but, the way they are graphically presented could be better. I mean here mostly Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 – the resolution of the graphics is weak – please improve it.
Page 15 (no line numbering) – the is something yellow left in the text.
In the conclusions section I would like to see a recommendation paragraph. What does your research say in the context of other constructions. As well as including potential climate extremes.
Author Response
"Please see Attachments"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article can be accepted.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewers for their affirmation and careful guidance of this article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Mention of Fig. 14 should be removed from the text of the article.
Author Response
I have removed the reference to Figure 14 from the text of the article. Thanks to the reviewers for their careful guidance on this article.
