Development and Constitutive Model of Fluid–Solid Coupling Similar Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.
- However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
- The abstract could become much better if it properly introduces the study from a research standpoint. Also, the main findings could be stated more pointedly in the abstract.
- The failure pattern in the samples should be examined.
- Page 6: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:
“Combined with previous research on water chemistry [26], it can be considered that after reaching the peak value, the deformation of the specimen after water immersion is larger than that of the material without water immersion. This is because in addition to the difference of the material itself, there is also the influence of water lubrication. The lubrication of water leads to the relative rotation and slip between the material particles, which leads to the increase of the displacement of the material after water immersion under the same load. The peak strain increases and the strength decreases.”.
- Can the use of other methods presented in some studies improve the accuracy of the results to an acceptable level?
- It is suggested to add articles entitled “Bensmaine et al. Numerical Analysis of Seepage Failure Modes of Sandy Soils within a Cylindrical Cofferdam”, “Çakır & Coşkun. Theoretical Issues with Rayleigh Surface Waves and Geoelectrical Method Used for the Inversion of Near Surface Geophysical Structure” and “Kien et al. Numerical Simulation of the Stability of Rock Mass around Large Underground Cavern” to the literature review.
- Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
- Conclusion:
•The conclusion section is currently a repeat or rehash of the preceding sections, and needs to be re-written to improve it, keeping in mind the following suggestions.
•Update the conclusion to include the newly formulated theoretical contributions
•Mention the limitations of the study and prospects for future research.
•Summarize the key results in a compact form and re-emphasize their significance.
•This conclusion could be worded in a manner as to emphatically motivate the academic community to get down to actionable, practical engaged scholarship.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful review, we have carefully studied the comments and revised accordingly. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. There are many researches on fluid-structure coupling materials. The paper needs to be summarized and put forward the differences between the research results and previous studies.
2. In addition to the similarity of mechanical strength, it is more important to consider the similarity of solid deformation and hydraulic properties during the development of fluid-structure coupling materials. This paper needs to be discussed.
3. The innovation of the paper is insufficient, whether it is possible to establish a quantitative relationship between the material ratio and the physical and mechanical properties, for example, through numerical simulation and orthogonal test to establish a formula.
4. The following papers are helpful for your research and can be referred to. EARTH SCIENCE INFORMATICS, 15 (2) , pp.855-862. GEOMATICS NATURAL HAZARDS & RISK, 13 (1) , pp.2086-2106
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful review, we have carefully studied the comments and revised accordingly. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you so much for your thoughtful review, we have carefully studied the comments and revised accordingly. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been revised very well, so I would suggest to accept in its present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been correctly revised and is recommended to be accepted.
