Study on a Transparent Similar Rock-Anchoring Structure under Impact Tests and Numerical Simulation Tests

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article submitted for review is devoted to the study of the processes of destruction of the anchor structure under the action of impact loads. The research topic is relevant, since understanding the anchor failure mechanism allows developing measures to prevent and improve safety in mine workings and tunnels. The authors applied laboratory studies and numerical simulations.

The results of the study have scientific and practical value. The material of the article corresponds to the subject of the journal.

However, after a detailed acquaintance with the material of the study, I had comments and recommendations, the elimination of which will improve the quality of the article.

1. In the abstract, the authors mention PFC. The abbreviated name must first be given in full and the PFC must be given in parentheses. Further down the text, you can use PFC.

2. It is recommended to add an anchor to the keywords.

3. Introduction should start with number 1. Example: 1. Introduction. Subsequent chapters need to be re-numbered.

4. Literature is not designed according to the requirements. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1-3] or [1,3].

5. For figure 6, the signature is located on top. The signatures are bold, and sometimes regular. Line 54 needs to be corrected for 2018. Line 150 is bold. Lines 149-150 should be placed on a new page. The bottom of table 1 goes to another page. The title of figure 12 is incorrectly shifted to a new page. Line 216 - incorrect numbering of the section, most likely 3.2.

6. Authors should take a more responsible approach to the design of the submitted article in the journal. Signatures of figures and tables do not meet the requirements. On some drawings, the signatures are in small letters, on some - with a capital letter. The width of the text column should also be changed. It is recommended to look at the design of the latest published articles in the journal.

7. The structure of the article is not entirely logical and understandable. I would recommend after the introduction of Section 2 to be called “Research Methodology” and to divide it into 2 subsections: 2.1. Methodology for studying the impact load of the anchor structure (this includes sections of the author's version of the article 1.1., 1.2) and 2.2. Numerical simulation technique (this includes 3.1, 3.2). Section 3 can be called "Results of the study of the impact load of the anchor structure" or close to this (this includes 2.1, 2.2, 3.3).

8. Figure 14, which shows the results of the simulation, lacks a scale of values to explain the colors. Also what are the quantitative values?

9. I would like to see a more extended method of numerical simulation (in the version of the authors section 3.2). Under what conditions is the simulation performed? Has the model been loaded? Was the effect of rock pressure forces taken into account? How was the model fixed? What is the destruction criterion?

10. It is necessary to explain where the parameters in Table 1 were taken from.

11. It seems to me that it would be interesting for the authors to consider in the introduction an article where a new method of fixing anchors was studied in laboratory conditions and thereby expand the geography of the review.

Sakhno, I., Sakhno, S., Isaienkov, O., & Kurdiumow, D. (2019). Laboratory studies of a high-strength roof bolting by means of self-extending mixtures. Mining of Mineral Deposits, 13(2), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining13.02.017

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript entitled “Study on transparent similar rock- anchoring structure under impact test and numerical simulation test” by Changxing Zhu, Xu Liu, Yeming An，Weihao Zhao

 

The paper investigates the failure mechanism of interface debonding of anchor structure by using a transparent similar rock-anchoring structure and developing a special impact load test system. The paper shows a contribution yet the following comments can be improvement for the paper:-

─       The organization of the article to be reviewed with MDPI standard sections. Please see  https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions).

─       References must be ordered according to applied science journal style; please see ( https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions).

Article contribution:

─       Please use a separate paragraph with the article's contribution. Now it is within the literature review, and it is vital to highlight the contribution of this paper. 

─       Please extend the introduction with a summary of the article organization. I mean “section 2 concerns…, section 3 presents…, etc.”

Material

─       This section of this article overlaps with the Introduction section and the Results and Discussion section and should be separated.

 

 Results

─       There is a lack of discussion.  Pay more attention to the discussion and it is important to make a comparison with previous relevant studies if any.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done work to eliminate the comments. After correcting the comments, the material of the article looks much better.

Please carefully review the article again in accordance with the formatting requirements. Also for minor errors.For example, "Table 1shows"...(line 242).

Authors, please, provide your answer to reviewer's comment No. 10 in the text of the article, where Table 1 is mentioned. For the reader of the article, it is especially important where the physical and mechanical parameters are taken from.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors 

I appreciate the efforts you made to improve the revised version of your manuscript. please reset the position of captions of Figures 9 and 10  to correctly match with the meant figure. It will be beneficial if you added the units of the X-axis of Figure 13 also change the title of the Y-axis to be "number of cracks" not "cracks number" and use it in the text. 

in Line 233, it is written "Fig.13 is the relationship diagram between crack accumulation curve and loading steps.", I think this is incorrect because the figure shows the relation between the loading and the number of generated cracks. please add more explanation about this figure.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx