Investigation of the Mechanical Behaviour of Lingulid Sandstone Emphasizing the Influence from Pre-Existing Structural Defects—Part 2: Dynamic Testing and Numerical Modelling
, Bratislav Lukic 1, Federico Schiaffini 1, Kenneth Weddfelt 3 and Per-Lennart Larsson 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, based on dynamic testing and numerical modelling, the mechanical behavior of Lingulid Sandstone with pre-existing structural defects has been studied. This work is interesting. However, the studies are very simple and low. Moreover, there are many serious defects.
The main comments are as follows,
1. The section 1 is very poor and should be rewritten. The previous studies in this field should be analyzed more deeply and comprehensively. Moreover, the objective of this study should be provided clearly.
2. The English should be improved, and there are many too long sentences.
3. In the main text, there are many errors, such as lines 72-73, 85-86, 146-147, 150-151, 155-156, etc. Please check the whole text carefully.
4. Some figures can not be found in the main text, such as figure 1, figure 4, figure 5, etc. Please check the whole text carefully.
5. The title of figure 3 is too long and should be revised.
6. Line 136, where is table 7?
7. Line 138, where is table 6?
8. Line 161, where is table 6?
9. The main title of figure 7 should be provided.
10. Where are the parameters in table 4 from?
11. The comparison of results between tests and numerical study should be conducted comprehensively.
12. The section 5 is very bad. The main results and new findings should be provided clearly.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please correct the references errors.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This work (applsci-1946675) may be of interests for readers of appl sci. However, before the final decision being made, minor revision is required to provide a better and more rigorous work. Main concerns are listed as follows,
1. The resolution of figure 1 of this manuscript is terrible, which makes readers unable to understand the setup of your experiments.
2. Many citations of both references and tables of this manuscript have obvious format error and are not being presented in the right way.
3. Both the damage distribution of the test sample and numerical simulation result after edge on impact test should be presented side by side to provide better understanding and validations of your numerical simulation. By the way, if more simulations considering different conditions such as the distribution of the structures are presented, better understandings on the effects of it on the EOI test and failure mode would be provide.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read the revision again and found that the main comments in previous review can not be considered. And the improvement of this manuscript is negligible.
The main comments are as follows,
1. The English is still poor and there are many language errors. Moreover, there are still some too long sentences.
2. The section 1 is still very poor and should be rewritten. The previous studies in this field should be analyzed more deeply and comprehensively. Moreover, the objective of this study should be provided clearly.
3. The title of figure 3 is still too long which is two sentences. I think it is unsuitable.
4. The parameters in table 4 are from previous studies. Why? Are they suitable?
5. The comparison of results between tests and numerical study must be conducted comprehensively.
6. The section 5 is still bad.
Author Response
See attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
