PONE-D-20-06549

The Use of Surrounding Rock Loose Circle Theory Combined with Elastic-plastic Mechanics Calculation Method and Depth Learning in Roadway Support

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhihan Lv, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that in your study you used data from the existing literature. All PLOS journals require that authors adhere to our policies for sharing of data and materials: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Additionally, PLOS specifies that experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard; sample sizes are large enough to produce robust results; and methods are described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the experiment (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-3). As such, we ask that you provide access to the data used in your study, either within the manuscript, as supplementary files or via links to the data.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Based on the literature review, this paper analyzes the occurrence, development mechanism, and influencing factors of the loose zone in the surrounding rock of the roadway. On the basis of ANN, the surrounding rock is classified and the support network model of decision system is established. The results show that after completing the design of the tunnel support, the crown subsidence changes dramatically about 7 days after excavation, and the total subsidence is 14 mm. In the next month, the deformation is slow and the settlement is small, and it is basically stable after 1 month. The curve of vault subsidence rate shows that the vault subsidence rate is less than or equal to 1mm/d after 7 days, so does the convergence rate. With the advance of the working face, the displacement of the surrounding rock far away from the working face will gradually reduce, and the surrounding rock will tend to be stable. However, there are still some deficiencies before the publication of the article:

1: The keywords of the article need to be modified. The author is suggested to replace the keywords "deep learning" with other specific deep learning algorithms used in the article, and finally add the number of key words to 5.

2: In the last paragraph of the introduction, the author needs to simply put forward the main research content and research methods of this paper, but there should be no content about the research results. However, “The test results show that the decision-making system for support that is proposed in this study has strong practicability and reliability, which can provide a basis for roadway support construction” is the summary of the research results. Please check and revise.

3: It is suggested that the author reduce the background description of deep learning and neural network in Section 2.4, and add some descriptions of specific application methods of neural network algorithm.

4: In Section 3.2, “In order to verify the effect of applying the support decision system, the surrounding rock displacement and vault subsidence of the portal section were analyzed” and the convergence value and convergence speed of the "AB" and "CD" sides of the opening are respectively described in the following paper. Please explain the specific location.

5: Some references of the article are too old, so the author is suggested to try to quote the journal articles published in the last three to five years. And the format of the references is not uniform and the articles with complete information should be used. Please check and revise carefully.

Reviewer #2: This paper analyzes the occurrence, development mechanism, and influencing factors of the loose zone of the surrounding rock of the roadway. According to the characteristics of surrounding rock loosening, the detection method is selected. The surrounding rock is classified and the support network model of decision system is established. It is found that the stability time of the surrounding rock displacement in the portal section is the same as that of the settlement of the arch crown under the initial support, and the amount of deformation is approximately the same. It shows that the support parameters and construction methods are reasonable, providing technical support for mining methods such as coal mines that need deep roadway driving. But the article still has the following shortcomings. Please check carefully and correct.

1.In the abstract, “The convergence value of AB is 6.47mm, CD is 10.26mm: CD is slightly larger than AB, and it is close to stable one month later”, what are AB and CD specifically?

2.The last paragraph of the introduction should highlight the purpose and significance of the research, and simply describe the research methods.

3.In the introduction section, there is a sentence “The test results show that the decision-making system for support that is proposed in this study has strong practicability and reliability, which can provide a basis for roadway support construction”. This part should not appear in the introduction section. Please delete it.

4.In Section 3 “Results and discussion”, it only describes the results, but not the discussion. Please supplement the relevant content.

5.The conclusion part should include the summary of the research content, the shortcomings and limitations of the research, and finally put forward the prospects or research directions. The current conclusion in this paper is long, so it is suggested to reduce it. It is enough to keep the important information, and there is no need to elaborate the research background.

6.Some of the references are relatively old, so it is suggested that the author update the references.

Reviewer #3: According to the characteristics of surrounding rock loosening, using the knowledge of elastic-plastic mechanics, the failure mechanism of surrounding rock in deep mining roadway is studied theoretically. The surrounding rock is classified by artificial neural network (ANN), and the support network model of decision system is established. Then, taking the underground mining roadway of a coal mine as an example, the industrial test of "stability classification and support decision system of surrounding rock in deep roadway" is carried out. The results show that with the advance of the working face, the displacement of the surrounding rock far away from the working face will gradually reduce, and the surrounding rock will tend to be stable. The stability time of the displacement of the surrounding rock in the portal section is the same as that of the settlement of the arch crown under the initial support, and the amount of deformation is roughly the same, which shows that the support parameters and construction methods are reasonable. This study can provide technical support for mining methods such as coal mines that need deep roadway excavation. The following issues need to be revised before publication:

1: The specific meaning of the abbreviation in the abstract part of the article needs to be specified. For example, what do "AB" and "CD" in the result part of the abstract respectively represent? Please check and add the relevant content.

2: In Section 2.1 of the method part, the author mentioned many times that the stability of the surrounding rock of the roadway is different in different production fields and application requirements, and different roadway support methods are selected. Please give an example to illustrate one or two of the situations.

3: There are some equations in Section 2.3, the author needs to introduce the meaning of the letters, such as m, n, C, u, Lp, etc. in equation (11), as well as the letters in equations (12) - (16) in Section 2.4.

4: The third paragraph in Section 3.1 is about the research results of the article, so what are the first and second paragraphs? It is suggested that the content of this part should be reasonably added in the method part, and the results of Section 3.1 should be discussed and analyzed.

5: Please reduce the description of the research background in the conclusion and add the summary of the research results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Xin Gao

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The Use of Surrounding Rock Loosening Circle Theory Combined with Elastic-plastic Mechanics Calculation Method and Depth Learning in Roadway Support

PONE-D-20-06549R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Zhihan Lv, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All comments have been revised and replied, I am very satisfied. This paper meets the publication requirements and is recommended for publication. Good luck.

Reviewer #2: In this revision, authors explain and discuss my concerns in details. Therefore, I recommend this manuscript is mature enough to meet the publication quality. The manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer #3: In this revision, authors have already addressed all the comments. Therefore, I am satisfied with their work and suggest to accept the paper in the phase.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Xin Gao