Next Article in Journal
Antisense-Mediated Down-Regulation of Factor V-Short Splicing in a Liver Cell Line Model
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Near-Bed Flow Characteristics of Alluvial Channel with Seepage
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Experiments on Material Proportions for Similar Materials with High Similarity Ratio and Low Strength in Multilayer Shale Deposits

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(20), 9620; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209620
by Yaobin Shi 1,2,3, Yicheng Ye 1,2,3, Nanyan Hu 1,2,*, Xu Huang 1 and Xianhua Wang 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(20), 9620; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11209620
Submission received: 4 October 2021 / Revised: 13 October 2021 / Accepted: 14 October 2021 / Published: 15 October 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author:

I have read the article titled "Experiments on Material Proportions for Similar materials with high similarity ratio and low strength in multilayer shale deposits" written by Yaobin Shi, Yicheng Ye, Nanyan Hu, Xu Huang and Xianhua Wang.

The document has 14 pages. The article is well organized

All sections are well developed

I have done a reading and checked its parts.

They should create a section 2. Materials and methods instead of Experimental design of similar material proportioning for multilayer shale deposits.

The subsections are well developed and explained.

The materials used are well characterized and the methodology procedures well explained and adapted to the scientific method.

Chapter 3. Proportioning and test preparation of low strength similar materials I would add to Chapter 2.

4. Test results and analysis

They should reference the SPSS software that does not appear in the References

I suggest you reconsider reorganizing section 2.

For my part I will recommend the publication of this article.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer thanks the authors and editors for the opportunity to review the manuscript.

 

Comments to the manuscript:

 Figure 1. The text in the diagram is cut off in some fields. This should be corrected.

 

Section 2: The authors do not detail the methods of the laboratory tests conducted.

 

Section 3.1: Could the authors describe in more detail why such 'replacements' were chosen?

 

Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2: Density and porosity are closely related. In general, the higher density the lower porosity, and vice versa. Therefore, these parameters must be analyzed together.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop