Energy Evolution Law of Sandstone Material during Post-Peak Cyclic Loading and Unloading under Hydraulic Coupling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Considering the post-peak cyclic loading and unloading deterioration effect under hydraulic coupling, a series of experiments were carried out on sandstone. The strain energy relationship of sandstone under confining pressure and pore pressure was analyzed, and the evolution law of rock energy under confining pressure and pore pressure was revealed. The article title accurately reflects the content. The abstract is complete and stand-alone. The methods and results are described very clearly. Results are trustworthy. Conclusions with the main results were made. This research is characterised by a good level of contribution to the field and the intermediate level of scientific novelty. This article might be recommended for publication. Some remarks:

(1) The introduction section is not concise enough, please further accurately summarize and point out the reference value and significance of the reference.

(2) Please ensure that the format of the physical quantities involved in the text is uniform. 

(3) Please check all the images in the text to ensure that the size and format are consistent.

(4) Can these research results have any practical application? Please, include this in the Conclusions.

(5) The conclusion part needs to be refined.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript proposed the energy evolution law of sandstone material during Post-Peak cyclic loading and unloading. The work is overall logically structured and the present with good technical details. This paper makes a good contribution to the prediction of the sandstone material property. There are several places in this manuscript requiring further clarification and modifications as suggested below. A major revision is required.

1. English should be improved.

2. It is recommended to avoid using the first person as much as possible, such as we.

3. Suggest the author to increase the number of Keywords. In addition, keywords should be more precise, rather than using broad concepts (such as sandstone) to describe the core idea of the paper.

4. The citation format of the paper is not uniform, and the author should carefully check it.

5. The introduction is logically chaotic, only citing a large number of scholars' research results. It is recommended that the author rewrite it. In addition, the last paragraph should emphasize the innovation and contribution of this paper.

6. The paper should provide more detailed sample information and parameters.

7. For Figs. 5 - 7, it is recommended to unify the range of the vertical and horizontal coordinates of the figures for easy comparison. For example, the horizontal coordinate range of Figs. 5a, b, and d are all -15~15, while Fig. 5c are -10~10.

8. The horizontal axis title of Fig. 10a should be changed to "Axial strain".

9. Can the author provide figures on the failure of the sample and the evolution of internal cracks during cyclic loading?

10. The energy evolution law proposed in the paper is whether there exist any limitations or deficiencies. If so, it is recommended that the author supplement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not pay much attention to the quality of the article, as evidenced by:

- too many self-citations. It is worth adding articles published in various journals to make the scientific review more credible

- formulas (2), (3) and (5) need to be corrected - lack of linearity

- positioning of charts to be improved: 4-10, 12-16

- be sure to add spaces after Fig. e.g. in line 312.

- it is necessary to add references to specific fragments of articles in the summary

- what it is "11" in line 55 or "12" in line 59?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language in the article is very basic and it would be worth working on the use of scientific vocabulary.

It is recommended to rewrite the entire article using better quality English. Currently, an article in this regard is unacceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns are solved by the authors. I suggest to accept the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English is OK. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised according to the guidelines. Currently, there are no comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article has been revised according to the guidelines. Currently, there are no comments.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript!