Macroscopic Mechanical Properties of Brittle Materials with a 3D Internal Crack Based on Particle Flow Simulations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Good paper. The narration is simple and good. Right techniques and methods were used.
- The abstract of the manuscript is clear and sufficient.
- The purpose of the study is clearly explained.
- References on the subject are appropriate, but can be increased further.
- The expressions and numbers in Table 8 can be more readable.
Author Response
PLease see the attatchment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of manuscript entitled “Macroscopic Mechanical Properties of Brittle Materials with 3- D Internal Crack based on Particle Flow Simulations”
The paper investigates the relation between micro and macro properties of brittle material (having an internal crack) by simulation that will be reflected on the material failure mode. The results obtained in the manuscript are interesting and deserve attention, yet the manuscript needs serious efforts to be improved. Some improvement suggestions can be as follows:-
1- The abstract seems descriptive rather than informative where no numbers are mentioned. I recommend rewriting the abstract and stress the gap for implementing the paper? How it was done (methodology)? What are the most important findings in numeric values?. Also avoid using Acronyms unless they are firstly fully mentioned either in the abstract or the whole manuscript.
2- In the current flow of the manuscript it is difficult to differentiate the different sections. Please reorganize the manuscript to help the reader to see methodology section ( modeling, software, simulation boundaries), Results and discussion section, model validation etc.
3- The caption of Figure 1 should be modified to reflect its relation with the authors work ended with a citation rather than the current way “Figure 1. The fragment of a resin sample in Dyskin’s experiment” where it is defined by Dyskin name with no clear relation to the work.
4- Page 4, lines 88-95, in the basic steps of generating 3-D internal numerical models, the authors mentioned “(3) An external *·stl file crack model was imported and an internal crack was generated. Then, a joint contact model was set and values were assigned to the corresponding parameters; (4) Finally, mechanical test simulations were conducted, in which *·stl represented the fracture model file, which was the corresponding format file designed and exported in CAD software according to the results of an indoor test sample”, all those models are completely blind for the reader. What are their main characteristics of these models and their justifications?
5- Figure 2, more information exists in the text should also appear on the model (model dimensions, 3D crack location, etc.)
6- In the section “2.2. The influence of matrix micro parameters” the written equations should be explained more with terms defined
7- The tables are not correctly numbered where table 7 and table 9 appears before tables 6 and table 8.
8- For the figures in the different Tables 1- 9 , color legends should be shown
9- Explain equations 3 and 4, also define the terms
10- Model validation should be clearly included in the manuscript
11- The conclusion is too much wordy and confusing, it should be rewritten to reflect more concise findings
12- Attention should be made to the references styles
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study authors have examined the macro and micro parameters of fractures to understand the failure mechanism.
The authors should check the issues given below ;
Please check the font of heading 2
There is a point at Line 222
In the Line 226 given equation in the e.g should be Tc = c + tanϕ
Figure 17 please fix the “numeical” on figure
There is a confusion at caption of figure 18
Heading “5. Conclusion” have to be “4.Conclusion”
The manuscript should be accepted after considering the issues given above
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. There is no mention of the refrence of the Figure 1 in the text，please add it.
2. There should be a small error in lines 144 to 145, which has nothing to do with table 2.Besides, there seems to be something wrong with the order of tables in the paper.,Please correct them.
3. There are paragraph segmentation problems in the paragraph line 146 and line 180,check and correct them.
4. According to the convention, the letters "k" (line 157) and other letters need to be italicized. Please check the full text and revise all.
5. The serial number of the formula (Formula 3 )is marked incorrectly, please correct it.
6. The horizontal and vertical coordinates of the graph in the text are not uniform, which can be adjusted to keep consistent.
7. There are few documents at the beginning of the article, which can be appropriately added and reordered.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made an effort to improve the quality of the manuscript in accordance with the given comments. Although there is still place for improvement, I suggest accepting the manuscript for publication. The references styles have to be reviewed again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
