Experimental Study on the Charge Signal Time-Frequency Characteristics during Fracture Process of Precracked Syenogranite under Uniaxial Compression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Every experimental results during fracture process of fractured syenogranite under uniaxial compression have been described evenly, but the manuscript is although short of deep analyses. That is, mechanism from phenomenon need to be dug.

Many mistakes in the manuscript, such as “in the Among the”“earthquakes. signals”“was calculated”“Figs. 4–25”“cphase”“sensor is different, and the correlation coefficient of signals are”“angle of 600”“mineral earthquake”, and so on.

Author Response

We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, and the typos and grammar errors we found have been corrected.For details, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is a study of the time-frequency characteristics of the charge signal in the process of syenogranite fracture under uniaxial compression. The change rule of charge induction signal in the deformation and fracture process of syenogranite with different dip angles and the waveform characteristics of charge induction signal in different loading sections are obtained, and the precursory characteristics of charge induction signal in the deformation and fracture process of syenogranite are obtained, which establishes the experimental theoretical basis for the prediction of fault rockburst. The following suggestions are made for the thesis.

 - Kindly include the sections of Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results & Discussion and Conclusions in the manuscript.

 - There are still some textual incompatibilities in this paper, so I suggest the author proofread carefully!

 - Explain the mechanism of charge generation during the process of rock deformation and failure.

 - How is the signal power value calculated? What are the units of power in the text?

 - The conclusion and discussion section of this paper are relatively weak. The discussion section is the main part of a paper, but this manuscript mainly reports the data of signal analysis without proving the results by existing reasoning. I suggest that the author add some inference and comparison through publications available in the literature.

- I also recommend editing your manuscript according to the instructions for authors in the journal website.

Carefully check English language

Author Response

We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, and the typos and grammar errors we found have been corrected.For details, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Variations of dynamic parameters like charge induction and frequency levels during the mining process of fault rockburst are analyzed in this study. The study is interesting and contributes. 

 

1. main question addressed by the research:

Rock deformation and fracture process of syenogranite with various fracture configurations was analyzed through charge induction signal monitoring.

2.Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Yes

3.   This paper adopts the charge induction monitoring system to conduct uniaxial  compression tests on syenogranite with fractures of different inclination angles, observes the laws of signals associated with charge induction, and obtains the time-frequency  characteristics of signals associated with charge induction in the instability failure of  fractured syenogranite.

4. The reviewer is convinced of the methodology.

5. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented

6. The references are appropriate.

7. All figures are to be arranged properly.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

1.      “The failure characteristics and charge induction signal law of intact syenogranite and fractured syenogranite under uniaxial compression were studied by employing a surveillance system using charge induction in order to effectively extract the precursory information of instability and failure of fractured syenogranite”. What is the limitations of existing technologies and procedures?

2.      For the abstract, follow the guidelines of the journal, which may cover the introduction, problem, methodology, results…

3.      The results are very obvious/universal. What special in the results?

4.      The existing technologies “Developing a new bursting liability index based on energy evolution for coal under different loading rates” have discussed the precursor in details.

5.       “Fault rockburst is a dynamic destabilization phenomenon caused by mining activities” is not only mining related phenomenon. Civil projects also have the issues “Geological and geomechanical heterogeneity in deep hydropower tunnels: A rock burst failure case study”.

6.      Split your introduction into multiple paragraphs.

7.      Your discussion and literature are general. Specific to your aims and objectives.

8.      Section 2 of the study has no relevancy. What is the need of the equations? Again, be specific.

9.      Why Syenogranite specimens?

10.   What standards the authors have adopted in their study? References?

11.   Units must be per the journal standards/guidelines.

12.   Figure 2 must be clear.

13.   Define the research problem.

14.   Figures are blurting.

15.   The results need extensive discussion in line with the literature.

16.   “Pearson correlation” statements need references.

17.   Figures need adjustments.

18.   Figure 16 (a) and (b) are not readable.

19.   Include the plots/figures which can directly support the study.

20.   Conclusion must be concise and must be based on the results of this study.

 

Moderate English editing required. Split the lengthy sentences and paragraphs.

Author Response

We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, and the typos and grammar errors we found have been corrected.For details, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The outcomes of the given study are interesting. However, I have following comments for the authors to improve this manuscript;

Authors have used the term fractured syenogranite, however, the specimens are not fractured before the testing. Instead having induced pre crack so they can use the term specimens with pre crack or pre cracked syenogranite specimens. 

Similarly fracture inclination angle can be replaced by crack inclination angle. 

Line 60-62: When marble was ------then slightly decreased.

They discovered that they rose sharply.... Please correct this line. 'they' is creating confusion here. authors have already cited the studies, therefore, no need to give authors name here.

Line 67 to 70: Through the use of -----and rock fracture.

Authors should make this sentence clear. It is difficult to understand as to what being done.

Line 86-90: Lie et al........of roof rocks. 

This sentence is also very long and confusing. Authors can split this in to two sentences. 

Line 149: equation (2); authors can use brackets in this equation.

Line 164-165:  ∆S (∆Qer) is confusing. It can be written as " then the amount of free charge (∆Qer) generated when the damage area is ∆S;

Figure 2 is not clear. Please provide a clear figure to demonstrate your experimental setup. Authors may also use a schematic diagram showing each experimental component. 

Line 287: The presence of cracks (not fractures causes------)-------at the crack tip (not fracture tip) 

Line 508: in the cphase___________(is this phase)

 

Authors are required to check the grammar throughout the manuscript. In some sentences past tense whereas in other sentences present tense is used.

 

Author Response

We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. The manuscript has also been double-checked, and the typos and grammar errors we found have been corrected.For details, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

1.      Reduce the abstract to 200 words as per journal restrictions.

2.      Follow this link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions.

3.      The authors have responded to my comments; however, these changes are not reflected in the revised version's abstract. Modify the abstract accordingly.

4.      Discuss the results in relation to existing literature to provide more clarity.

5.      There have been instances of fault rock burst in civil engineering projects. It would be beneficial to include a few examples in the authors' literature.

6.      Some figures in the revised version are not fully legible. Check the PDF version.

7.      A couple of figures are still not legible. Kindly recheck and upload the corrected version in the submission system.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

.

.