Experimental Study on the Dip Angle Effect of Layered Cemented Fillers: A Sandblasting Treatment Applied to Mine Filling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments 

Since the editor make a decision without my review report. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ' Experimental study on the dip angle effect of layered cemented fillers: A sandblasting treatment applied to mine filling' (ID: 2342994). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript are listed below.

1. The abstract section was reorganized. The overview of the background of the paper was condensed, the listing of the results was sorted out, and some precise numerical data were added to make its structure and logic more transparent and to highlight the innovative points of this research.
2. The introduction section was reorganized. The section on sandblasting sublevels was re-narrated, and the importance of the study was added to the discussion.
3. Revisions were made to complete the addition of error bars or scale bars to Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
4. The procedure used for mixing, molding, and curing specimens has been revised to add a description of the sandblasting details.(Line 117)
5. 7 new references have been added to the article's discussion section to support the theories that emerged during the discussion, and the total number of references is now 31.

We have done our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes do not affect the content or the framework of the paper. The changes made are marked in red in the revised paper. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope the corrections will be approved.

Best regards,

Rongtao Bao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work has investigated the dip angle effect of layered cemented. The findings in this work have the potential to extend the application for industry reference.

However, the novelty needs to be re-condensed to make it clear to readers. The  detailed comments as per attach file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ' Experimental study on the dip angle effect of layered cemented fillers: A sandblasting treatment applied to mine filling' (ID: 2342994). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewer's comments:

The novelty needs to be re-condensed to make it clear to readers.

The detailed comments as per attach file.

Response:

1. The abstract section was reorganized. The overview of the background of the paper was condensed, the listing of the results was sorted out, and some precise numerical data were added to make its structure and logic more transparent and to highlight the innovative points of this research.
2. The introduction section was reorganized. The section on sandblasting sublevels was re-narrated, and the importance of the study was added to the discussion.
3. Thank you for your suggestions on the language expression in the article; we have completed the revision according to your suggestions.(Line 81, Line 95, Line 138, Line 277)
4. The procedure used for mixing, molding, and curing specimens has been revised to add a description of the sandblasting details.(Line 117)
5. As suggested by the reviewer, 7 new references have been added to the article's discussion section to support the theories that emerged during the discussion, and the total number of references is now 31.

We have done our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes do not affect the content or the framework of the paper. The changes made are marked in red in the revised paper. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope the corrections will be approved.

Best regards,

Rongtao Bao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, 

After rectifying the minor review comments, this article may accept. 

Review comments to the author (applsci-2342994)

In this manuscript, the author wrote an article entitled “Experimental study on the dip angle effect of layered cemented fillers: A sandblasting treatment applied to mine filling” suitable for publication, but the concerned author has to rectify the below-mentioned minor review comments in the “Applied Sciences”.

 

After rectifying the following minor review comments, this article may accept. However, please rectify the following,

 

1.   What exactly does the process of sandblasting entail when it comes to dentistry? What exactly happens during the sandblasting process when working with metal?

2.   What is the root cause of sandblasting? What kind of media is most frequently used in sandblasting?

3.   What is it that is used as filler in mortar and concrete, and also what is it that helps to reduce the cost of those materials? What exactly is the function of the various fillers?

4.   How do you make sense of the results of the particle size distribution? What does DLS data mean?

5.   What exactly is the distinction between uniaxial compressive strength and unconfined compressive strength? How can the uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen be determined?

6.   What is the key distinction between the UCS test and the triaxial test? What are the various ways that an individual can fail the UCS test?

7.   What is the compressive strength of cement after it has been allowed to sit for three days? What is the compressive strength of concrete after 28 days, measured in psi?

8.   When it comes to concrete cylinders, what is their modulus of elasticity? What exactly is meant by the term "post peak behavior of concrete"?

 

It would be best if you rectify the above comments and submit them once again for your expectation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ' Experimental study on the dip angle effect of layered cemented fillers: A sandblasting treatment applied to mine filling' (ID: 2342994). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewer's comments:

1.What exactly does the process of sandblasting entail when it comes to dentistry? What exactly happens during the sandblasting process when working with metal?

2.What is the root cause of sandblasting? What kind of media is most frequently used in sandblasting?

3.What is it that is used as filler in mortar and concrete, and also what is it that helps to reduce the cost of those materials? What exactly is the function of the various fillers?

4.How do you make sense of the results of the particle size distribution? What does DLS data mean?

5.What exactly is the distinction between uniaxial compressive strength and unconfined compressive strength? How can the uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen be determined?

6.What is the key distinction between the UCS test and the triaxial test? What are the various ways that an individual can fail the UCS test?

7.What is the compressive strength of cement after it has been allowed to sit for three days? What is the compressive strength of concrete after 28 days, measured in psi?

8.When it comes to concrete cylinders, what is their modulus of elasticity? What exactly is meant by the term "post peak behavior of concrete"?

Response:

1. The abstract section was reorganized. The overview of the background of the paper was condensed, the listing of the results was sorted out, and some precise numerical data were added to make its structure and logic more transparent and to highlight the innovative points of this research.
2. The introduction section was reorganized. The section on sandblasting sublevels was re-narrated, and the importance of the study was added to the discussion.
3. Applying sandblasting to the metal can remove rust and prepare the surface for painting, spraying electroplating, and other processes. The metal surface treated by sandblasting can achieve a clean, rough surface with a certain degree of surface requirements, thus improving the bond with other parts. At the same time, sandblasting is also commonly used in concrete science to treat the layered surface of old and new concrete, and sandblasting and grinding to improve the roughness of the surface to have a better connection with the new concrete. The same points exist between the delamination of the filler studied in this paper and are discussed in the revised introduction section with additional discussion.
4. Unlike the sandblasting treatment in concrete science, the sandblasted on the layered surface of the filler will remain on the layered surface and associate with the filler to become a whole with the hydration reaction, considering the cost of filling, the standard and low-cost sand in mining mines is chosen as the medium for treatment.
5. In this paper, iron ore tailing sand is used as the primary material for filling, which belongs to the solid waste left after mine production, and is made into the mortar to backfill the mining area, which is to make resourceful use of the waste.
6. DLS data is one of the indicators affecting the strength of the specimen, and the particle size content in each zone will directly affect the strength of the specimen, and the particle size distribution of the tailings from different mines are different.
7. uniaxial compressive strength and unconfined compressive strength are two different tests with different requirements, such as the size of the specimen, compressive rate, etc.
8. The difference between uniaxial and conventional triaxial tests is the presence or absence of circumferential pressure, and the unqualified data in the test process in this paper are caused by human factors in the production of the specimens.
9. Post-peak ductility is the level of compressive strength that the specimen can maintain at the same strain during the yielding phase after the peak strength. Moreover, it has been added in 4.3 Post-peak ductility of layered cemented fillers. (Line 254)

We have done our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes do not affect the content or the framework of the paper. The changes made are marked in red in the revised paper. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope the corrections will be approved.

Best regards,

Rongtao Bao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The study examines the mechanical properties of cemented tailing sand fillers with interlayer inclination angles of 0° to 30° to improve the adverse effects of delamination. Uniaxial compression tests were conducted on two types of delaminated specimens, and the results showed that sandblasting treatment can improve the force transmission on the layered surface. A damage model was constructed based on Weibull distribution to provide a theoretical basis and technical guidance for actual filling construction. However, before further consideration of the manuscript, the authors must “fully” address the comments listed below:

 

1-    The abstract lacks a clear structure. To improve it, begin by providing an overview of the topic and explaining the rationale behind the paper. Next, describe the methodology used and outline the manuscript's structure. Finally, provide a detailed summary of the results, including numerical data where possible. This will ensure that readers clearly understand the paper's purpose, approach, and findings.

 

2-    Clarify the novelty and purpose of your research in the Abstract and Introduction sections to engage the reader and highlight the research's significance.

 

3-    XYZ coordinates, error bars, and scale bars are missing from many figures. 

 

4-    Determine the procedure used for mixing, molding, and curing your specimens. 

 

5-    The study only considers interlayer inclination angles of 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30°, and the effects of other inclination angles are not investigated. Also, how do the results of this study compare to previous research on interlayer delamination in concrete science?

 

6-    How do the authors explain the observed increase in post-peak ductility with increasing interlayer inclination angle, and what implications might this have for practical applications of the research?

 

7-    Explain the discrepancies between test curves and intrinsic structure models shown in Fig. 9.

 

8-    The authors mentioned that “Damage is the deterioration of the macroscopic mechanical properties of the material or structure caused by the sprouting and expansion of acceptable structural defects (such as microcracks and microporosity) under the action of an external load or environment”. However, I noticed that the concept of “Soundness” was not mentioned. Soundness is an important property of concrete that relates to its ability to resist cracking due to expansion. Also, the following papers are excellent examples of measuring the soundness of concrete (please reference them as well in your paper):

 

• Kabir, H., Hooton, R. D., & Popoff, N. J. (2020). Evaluation of cement soundness using the ASTM C151 autoclave expansion test. Cement and Concrete Research, 136, 106159.

• Mehta, P. K. (1978). History and status of performance tests for evaluation of soundness of cements. In Cement Standards—Evolution and Trends. ASTM International.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the constructive comments concerning our manuscript entitled ' Experimental study on the dip angle effect of layered cemented fillers: A sandblasting treatment applied to mine filling' (ID: 2342994). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. We have studied these comments carefully and made modifications which we hope meet with your approval. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses comments are listed below.

Responds to the reviewer's comments:

1.The abstract lacks a clear structure. To improve it, begin by providing an overview of the topic and explaining the rationale behind the paper. Next, describe the methodology used and outline the manuscript's structure. Finally, provide a detailed summary of the results, including numerical data where possible. This will ensure that readers clearly understand the paper's purpose, approach, and findings.

2.Clarify the novelty and purpose of your research in the Abstract and Introduction sections to engage the reader and highlight the research's significance.

3.XYZ coordinates, error bars, and scale bars are missing from many figures.

4.Determine the procedure used for mixing, molding, and curing your specimens.

5.The study only considers interlayer inclination angles of 0°, 10°, 20°, and 30°, and the effects of other inclination angles are not investigated. Also, how do the results of this study compare to previous research on interlayer delamination in concrete science?

6.How do the authors explain the observed increase in post-peak ductility with increasing interlayer inclination angle, and what implications might this have for practical applications of the research?

7.Explain the discrepancies between test curves and intrinsic structure models shown in Fig. 9.

8.The authors mentioned that “Damage is the deterioration of the macroscopic mechanical properties of the material or structure caused by the sprouting and expansion of acceptable structural defects (such as microcracks and microporosity) under the action of an external load or environment”. However, I noticed that the concept of “Soundness” was not mentioned. Soundness is an important property of concrete that relates to its ability to resist cracking due to expansion. Also, the following papers are excellent examples of measuring the soundness of concrete (please reference them as well in your paper):

• Kabir, H., Hooton, R. D., & Popoff, N. J. (2020). Evaluation of cement soundness using the ASTM C151 autoclave expansion test. Cement and Concrete Research, 136, 106159.
• Mehta, P. K. (1978). History and status of performance tests for evaluation of soundness of cements. In Cement Standards—Evolution and Trends. ASTM International.

Response:

 The abstract section was reorganized. The overview of the background of the paper was condensed, the listing of the results was sorted out, and some precise numerical data were added to make its structure and logic more transparent and to highlight the innovative points of this research.

1. The introduction section was reorganized. The section on sandblasting sublevels was re-narrated, and the importance of the study was added to the discussion.
2. Revisions were made to complete the addition of error bars or scale bars to Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
3. The procedure used for mixing, molding, and curing specimens has been revised to add a description of the sandblasting details.(Line 117)
4. In the mining context studied in this paper, the interlayer dips that occur in the infill mining area are all slow, not exceeding 20°. Sandblasting treatment in the concrete discipline is mainly used for roadbed construction above the surface, while the filling treatment in the mine void area is located underground, with limited working space.
5. The post-peak ductility of the two-layered types of specimens increase and then decreases with the increase of the dip angle between layers. Post-peak ductility is the level of compressive strength that the specimen can maintain at the same strain during the yielding phase after the peak strength. Moreover, it has been added in 4.3 Post-peak ductility of layered cemented fillers.(Line 254)
6. The difference between the test curve and the intrinsic model lies in the latter's idealized assumption of damage, i.e., the material will be defined as hollow when it has no internal force to carry the load, while the specimens in realistic tests can still carry the load after damage.
7. We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have added your recommended references in section 3.2 Damage model construction.（Line 142）

We have done our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes do not affect the content or the framework of the paper. The changes made are marked in red in the revised paper. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope the corrections will be approved.

Best regards,

Rongtao Bao

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Recommended for publication

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments are addressed