Influence of the Aggregate-Pouring Sequence on the Efficiency of Plugging Inundated Tunnels through Drilling Ground Boreholes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are provided in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

Your paper is about Analysis of the Influence of the Sequence of Pouring Aggregates on the Efficiency of Plugging for Inundated Tunnel through Ground Drilling Boreholes. 

My consideration of this submission is about scientific remarks and insights. You should add some scientific remarks and insights from your experimental approaches to the readers.

And also several parts of the paper and contents can slightly be modified with editing.

And I marked the correction part and added comments in the attached PDF file. please check them out.

Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper shows a comparison of different methods used to occlude cylindrical flow channels which can be representative of inundated tunnels in mines. The paper is nicely constructed though there are a few issues I had with it:  

1. There is a lot of work done in particle plugging in porous media, specifically by Faruk Civan, Pavel Bedrikovetsky, and Chadi El Mohtar. I would suggest that you browse through some of their work and it to the literature. This can also be used to explain why the order of adding grain sizes is important in plugging the channel.
2. What is still not clear to me is why were these two specific cases chosen? Why not compare the order of particle size addition: increasing order vs decreasing order.
3. The two experimental ‘trials’ have different effect of the gravitation forces because of the difference of the inclination angle. Would it be appropriate to compare the two results?
4. Small changes related to the write up:

  Line 38: “mega-sudden” — what does it even mean? Rewrite Line 43: “The overflow channel ..." Rewrite to improve clarity  Line 48: Elaborate on the “certain amount of space” Line 57: Please add a reference for the statement — “In practice, the maximum …” Line 63: Correction — “… pouring course particles upstream and fines particles downstream or vice versa" Line 87: Please decide if you want to use the Oxford comma, and stick by the decision. It was not used up to this point in the text. Line 131: Why was a geometric ratio of 20 selected? Please elaborate. Line 132: Please cite the previous research that you are referencing. Line 164: Why are these particle sizes and water velocity selected? Line 172: Why is the inclination angle changed from 0 to 8 degrees between the trials? Please elaborate. Fig 2: Please add the time markers on each image. Line 202: What was the volume/time/number of particles of each sand size added? Was it predetermined or added based on the response in the channel? Fig 4: Same as Fig. 2, please add time stamps on each image. Line 247: Flow rate of what accelerates? Water? Sand particle? Please elaborate. Line 260: Correction — “beneficial” Line 317-19: This seems like a rubric for the discussion section. Please remove. Line 333: What would you expect to happen if you pour a mixture of the three grain sizes from all three of the pouring points? Discuss. Line 343: Rewrite to improve clarity — “Select the same particle size and larger particle size” Line 351: Typo — “… mud protection, and select appropriate …”  

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors satisfactorily addressed my comments. I am pleased to recommend acceptance of the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your big help!

Reviewer 2 Report

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I added some comments about your revised manuscript. please concern the attached file.

And scientific contents from your results were still not presented clearly. Please make your results more scientific.

 

Thank you.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made the desired changes but I believe the paper can still be improved. I would recommend that you have the manuscript reviewed by an English speaker to correct the small grammatical mistakes which will significantly improve the point you are trying to get across. Some points to note:   L36: The opening paragraph should be rewritten to improve clarity. L45: What “certain volume” are you refering to? Please quantify it. L94: typo — “… have been carried out” L201: typo — “… at the upstream location first and then …" L204: typo — "… being used as a pouring…” L280: “At t0, as the sand is poured in ….” L302&L310: typo — “stage” L310: Remove the phrase “an extreme test is carried out” — it does not add any value

Author Response

Thank you so much. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.