Sensitivity Analysis of Fracture Geometry Parameters on the Mechanical Behavior of Rock Mass with an Embedded Three-Dimensional Fracture Network
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Some parts of the paper have been reported by the authors in the previous research (Wu et al., 2022)). Therefore, the authors should refer these parts to the previous research and change the structure of the paper fundamentally.
WU Na, LIANG Zheng-zhao, SONG Wen-cheng, LI Wan-run. Construction of a 3D equivalent rock random fracture network model and its application in the Lianghekou Hydropower Station. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2022, 44(7): 1282-1290. doi: 10.13374/j.issn2095-9389.2020.11.30.003
2. Validation of the numerical model (three-dimensional DFN model) should be done in this research. Before the numerical simulation is used, it has to be adequately validated to real case histories or experimental data.
3. Some concepts are not defined in the paper and create confusion for the readers. For example: critical values, F0.01(2,6) and F0.05(2,6), L9(34). In addition, I recommend providing a list of abbreviations used in the whole manuscript.
4. There is a direct relationship between UCS and elastic modulus. However, the authors did not provide any scientific reason for the difference in the effect of different parameters on the UCS and elastic modulus and only mentioned the comparison of the results with other research.
5. Title 2.1 is not selected correctly and should be corrected. For example: “data collection from the study area”
6. The manuscript contains grammatical errors and typos that need to be corrected. For example:
Line 15: “conducive to improve”: conducive to improving
Line 23: “the sensitive of the UCS”: the sensitivity of the UCS
Line 61: “method of extract region”: method of extracting region
Line 128: “is generally”: are generally
Lines 185 and 190: “each group of fracture”: each group of fractures
Line 222: “factors and level”: factors and levels
Line 275: “”: In Figure. 7e”: In Figure. 7d
Line 396: “parameters determine”: parameters to determine
Author Response
First of all, the authors should mention that they highly appreciate the guest editors and reviewers’ comments on the manuscript. With great care, the authors reviewed the comments, and have incorporated major revisions into the manuscript. Listed below are the author’s point-by-point responses to the comments. The revisions are marked red in the manuscript.
Reviewer #1:
Q1: Some parts of the paper have been reported by the authors in the previous research (Wu et al., 2022)). Therefore, the authors should refer these parts to the previous research and change the structure of the paper fundamentally.
Wu Na, Liang Zheng-zhao, Song Wen-Cheng, Li Wan-run. Construction of a 3D equivalent rock random fracture network model and its application in the Lianghekou Hydropower Station. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2022, 44(7): 1282-1290. doi: 10.13374/j.issn2095-9389.2020.11.30.003.
Response:
We have removed duplicate content and quoted relevant reference. See line 176 in the manuscript.
Q2: Validation of the numerical model (three-dimensional DFN model) should be done in this research. Before the numerical simulation is used, it has to be adequately validated to real case histories or experimental data.
Response:
In the DFN model, the fractures are random and spatial. Natural rock mass containing a certain number of fractures are typically large scale, making laboratory implementation difficult. Moreover, it is difficult to carry out an in-situ test to provide data for the verification of the model. There is also limited theoretical research on the mechanical properties of complex fractured rock masses. Therefore, there are few direct experimental and theoretical data of fractured rock masses for verifying the complex DFN model. However, the mechanical parameters of random fractured rock mass are calculated based on the numerical method, and compared with the mechanical parameters obtained based on the generalized Hoek-Brown strength criterion. The validity of the model have been verified in my related papers[1]. For the question, the relevant contents are supplemented in the manuscript. See line 210.
References:
- Wu, N., Liang, Z.Z., Song, W.C., Li, W.R. Construction of a 3D Equivalent Rock Random Fracture Network Model and its Application in the Lianghekou Hydropower Station. Chinese Journal of Engineering, 2022, 44(7), 1282-1290.
Q3: Some concepts are not defined in the paper and create confusion for the readers. For example: critical values, F0.01(2,6) and F0.05(2,6), L9(34). In addition, I recommend providing a list of abbreviations used in the whole manuscript.
Response:
List of symbols has been given according to the reviewer's suggestion. Seen line 27.
Q4: There is a direct relationship between UCS and elastic modulus. However, the authors did not provide any scientific reason for the difference in the effect of different parameters on the UCS and elastic modulus and only mentioned the comparison of the results with other research.
Response:
Thank you very much for the comment and it is a very meaningful question. In the discussion part, it was found that only changing the trace length of the fracture leads to the change of the order of the sensitivity of the elastic modulus and the uniaxial compressive strength to the geometric parameters of the fracture. Based on the current research results, it is difficult to give a scientifically sound explanation. To fully understand the problem, the global sensitivity analysis method can be used[1,2]. However, hundreds or even thousands of times-valued simulations may be required. It may take a lot of time and effort. Currently, we are also trying to build an agent model to deal with this problem. See lines 348-356.
References:
- Li, G.; Lu, Z.; Zhaoyan Lu; Jia Xu Regional Sensitivity Analysis of Aleatory and Epistemic Uncertainties on Failure Probability. Mech. Syst. Signal. Pr. 2014, 46, 209–226.
- Li, G.; Xie, C.; Wei, F.; Wang, F. Moment-Independence Global Sensitivity Analysis for the System with Fuzzy Failure State and Its Kriging Method. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 2018, 29, 658–666.
Q5: Title 2.2 is not selected correctly and should be corrected. For example: “data collection from the study area”.
Response:
The title of 2.2 has been revised. See line 150.
Q6: The manuscript contains grammatical errors and typos that need to be corrected. For example:
Line 15: “conducive to improve”: conducive to improving
Line 23: “the sensitive of the UCS”: the sensitivity of the UCS
Line 61: “method of extract region”: method of extracting region
Line 128: “is generally”: are generally
Lines 185 and 190: “each group of fracture”: each group of fractures
Line 222: “factors and level”: factors and levels
Line 275: “”: In Figure. 7e”: In Figure. 7d
Line 396: “parameters determine”: parameters to determine
Response:
The relevant contents have been corrected. See lines 15, 23, 63, 130, 182, 237 and 353.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In the Abstact section, the results of the study should be rearranged in a more understandable way.
The material properties in Table 1 are repeated in the text. For the sake of brevity, one of them should be omitted from the article.
Appropriate sources should be cited in the basic information in the article. (Orthogonal screme, etc.)
Table 3 and table 4 are difficult to understand, so they should be rearranged and evaluated.
Only 4 models are shown in Figure 5. The total number of models is higher. Why are other models not included?
Figure 7e is in the text. However, it is not available.
The representations in the tables should be consistent. Test number expressions in Table 3 and Table 5 have different representations.
Why are Table 4 and Table 6 the same?
The results section has been a repetition of the other sections. It should be reorganized into items.
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Q1: In the Abstact section, the results of the study should be rearranged in a more understandable way.
Response:
The Abstact section has been rearranged according to the reviewer's suggestion. See lines 13-24.
Q2: The material properties in Table 1 are repeated in the text. For the sake of brevity, one of them should be omitted from the article.
Response:
The material properties in the text were deleted from the article.
Q3: Appropriate sources should be cited in the basic information in the article. (Orthogonal screme, etc.)
Response:
Related articles have been cited. The relevant contents have been modified. See line 185.
Q4: Table 3 and table 4 are difficult to understand, so they should be rearranged and evaluated.
Response:
Tables 3 and 4 are merged into one table. See lines 189-193, 196.
Q5: Only 4 models are shown in Figure 5. The total number of models is higher. Why are other models not included?
Response:
The number of models is higher, so just some of them are given in Figure 5. In actuarially, each of the models can been given, as shown in Figure 5. See line 222.
Q6: Figure 7e is in the text. However, it is not available.
Response:
Related contents have been revised. See line 238.
Q7: The representations in the tables should be consistent. Test number expressions in Table 3 and Table 5 have different representations.
Response:
Related contents have been revised. See line 259.
Q8: Why are Table 4 and Table 5 the same?
Response:
Based on the Table 4, it was found that the results were inconsistent with other authors. To verify whether a change in an influencing factor affects the sensitivity of the rock mechanics parameters to the fracture geometry parameters, a series of additional studies based on the Table 5 we carried out. However, the level values of the trace length are changed in the Table 5. See lines 336-337.
Q9: The results section has been a repetition of the other sections. It should be reorganized into items.
Response:
The conclusions have been reorganized. See lines 358-376.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded to the comments from my previous review. The revised manuscript contains grammatical and language errors that need to be corrected to meet the level of the journal. For example:
Line 13: “The existing of”: The existence of
Line 63: “interested information”: interesting information
Line 227: “mass present brittle”: mass presents brittle
Line 229: “is investigated”: are investigated
Line 233: “rock mas”: rock mass
Line 320: “which is agreement”: which is in agreement
Line 348: “are differences with”: are different from
Line 371: “The sensitive of the UCS”: The sensitivity of the UCS
Author Response
Thank you for your careful guidance. The grammar and language have been revised in the munuscript.
