Temperature Variation of Rock during Deformation and Fracturing: Particle Flow Modeling Method and Mechanism Analyses
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is a numerical analysis of the thermal energy generated in rock deformation. The structure and content of this paper are good. However, it needs minor revisions.
Q1) In “2.3 Damping effect”, the relationship between damping, mainly applied for the stability of numerical analysis in the PFC program, and the heat energy generation in this study is ambiguous. An additional explanation is needed concerning the damping model used in the numerical analysis and the applied properties.
R1) It isn't easy to distinguish the color of lines in Figure 8, etc., so request a color adjustment.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor:
1. The followings are my comments regarding this manuscript. The authors should briefly discuss their innovation in the abstract, which has to be improved with much more information. It is poorly written, missing the test procedure, explaining the calculations, and is disorganized. The abstract needs to be improved by highlighting this paper's key findings.The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
2. I would also recommend the authors expand the introduction section to describe the reasoning and motivation behind their research application and identify their scientific contribution and hypothesis more clearly.
Abstract :
3. The entire abstract section must be revised to briefly explain this research study's importance, investigations, and outcomes with advantages/significance.
4. Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.
5. The research significance has to be highlighted at the end of the introductions.
6. Resent a detailed graphical abstract for this work, which could be more interesting for the reader community. The novelty of the study should be reflected in the abstract.
Introduction:
7. The authors must add more information and supported studies to the introduction since the introduction is poor and needs to be strengthened. Recent publications in the area of rock mechanical behavior, the fracturing of rock, and modeling used in rock mechanics have to be explained in the introduction to justify the study; the following references have to be considered in the study :
• Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Modified with Nanosilica Proppant and Salt Water for Shale Rocks
• Characterizing Rock Properties and Verifying Failure Parameters Using Data Analytics With Vipulanandan Failure and Correlation Models
• The Effects of Rock Index Tests on Prediction of Tensile Strength of Granitic Samples: A Neuro-Fuzzy Intelligent System
• Intelligent prediction of rock mass deformation modulus through three optimized cascaded forward neural network models
Methodology:
1. A flowchart should be provided for the work process. The flow chart of the study has to be described in the steps.
2. The frequency of the device has to be mentioned in the study. The properties of the devices used in the study, such as strain rate, machine deflection, and capacity, have to be mentioned in the methodology,
Results and discussion:
3. Without witness lab photos, the results are not believable. The shape of the sample failures and the paths have to be provided in the study.
Conclusion (s):
1. Compared with a great conducted study, The conclusions are so poorly written. Please modify it to represent the outcomes of the study. This major deduction from this study does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
2. Revision of the conclusions section is much required. It is not showcasing the entire essence of the detailed work presented in the paper. Also, inculcate the author's comments on the potential of the usage of graphene and its derivative with the comparison with potential alternatives in use for the current practice. This major deduction from this study, does not demonstrate adequate uniqueness/novelty of the finding from this detailed research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor:
The authors carefully studied the reviewer's comments and revised the manuscript. In my opinion, this manuscript's quality meets the journal's requirements. I suggest this manuscript be accepted and published in this journal.
