Development of Grouting Test System for Rough Fissure Rock Body and Research on Slurry Diffusion Law

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- Check all parameters in the equations to have been defined in the text.

2- Section 6: write a short summary before mentioning the findings of the study.

3- Increase the literature review in the introduction section.

4- Compare the results of your work with the results of the previous studies. You have only explained your results.

5- Table 1: Fracture roughness has no unit?

6- line 215: JRC is abbreviation of what word?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve the English. for example:

Rewrite lines 243- 244

Line 356, 425: “Chinese” is correct

Author Response

Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

1- Check all parameters in the equations to have been defined in the text.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, all parameters of the equations in the text were checked and proofread according to the comments of the reviewers.

2- Section 6: write a short summary before mentioning the findings of the study.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, we added a short summary of the full text before writing about the findings.

3- Increase the literature review in the introduction section.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, a literature review has been added to the introduction.

4- Compare the results of your work with the results of the previous studies. You have only explained your results.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, Section 4.4 has been added to the text to compare the results of the research with previous research.

5- Table 1: Fracture roughness has no unit?

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, roughness is a dimensionless value with no units.

6- line 215: JRC is abbreviation of what word?

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, JRC denotes the meaning of Joint Roughness Coefficient.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is of interest on ‘Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law’. However, the author did not provide significant novel conclusions based on the analyses presented in the paper. In several instances I also suggested to cite more relevant and recent literatures. Furthermore, more in-depth analyses and critical discussion is required to improve the overall paper quality.  If the equations are taken from any published sources, it should be cited, so authors should check the whole manuscript and revise it accordingly. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The professional proofread is required for the whole manuscript before acceptance.

Author Response

Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

The topic is of interest on ‘Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law’. However, the author did not provide significant novel conclusions based on the analyses presented in the paper. In several instances I also suggested to cite more relevant and recent literatures. Furthermore, more in-depth analyses and critical discussion is required to improve the overall paper quality.  If the equations are taken from any published sources, it should be cited, so authors should check the whole manuscript and revise it accordingly. 

The professional proofread is required for the whole manuscript before acceptance.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, The paper re-summarizes the conclusions, cites references with more similar content, and the authors develop a careful analysis of the research and discussion; the sources of the relevant formulas are labeled.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law " is of potential interest.

My main trouble concerns the document drafting. It appears for me necessary to take into consideration the references in the domain and the state of art.

Might you explain the link between supposed rheology and applications?

Domain of application with references ?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Editor

Concerning me the manuscript requires a deep revision to enhance the clarity of the document and the impact.

Best

Patrice

Author Response

Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

The manuscript entitled "Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law " is of potential interest.

My main trouble concerns the document drafting.  It appears for me necessary to take into consideration the references in the domain and the state of art.

Might you explain the link between supposed rheology and applications?

Domain of application with references ?

Concerning me the manuscript requires a deep revision to enhance the clarity of the document and the impact.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, this article primarily focuses on the field of grout support for coal mine roadway surrounding rocks. When grout flows within the surrounding rocks of different shapes in the roadway, there are significant variations in the grout diffusion state. This indicates a strong connection between the rheological characteristics of the grout and the characteristics of the fractures. The manuscript has been carefully revised to reflect these statements.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the development of a system for testing the cementation of a rough rock body. The article is written at a high level, contains the necessary references, and provides a theoretical analysis of the temporal and spatial patterns of suspension pressure. The presented mathematical model is beyond doubt.

Section 3 does not contain technical characteristics of the cement suspension used for research.

In the conclusions of this article, it is necessary to add 1 point regarding the practical aspect of applying the obtained experimental data. This data would be useful when carrying out work on cementation of rocks.

Author Response

Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

The article is devoted to the development of a system for testing the cementation of a rough rock body. The article is written at a high level, contains the necessary references, and provides a theoretical analysis of the temporal and spatial patterns of suspension pressure. The presented mathematical model is beyond doubt.

Section 3 does not contain technical characteristics of the cement suspension used for research.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the technical characterization of the cement suspensions used for the study is added in Section 3.

In the conclusions of this article, it is necessary to add 1 point regarding the practical aspect of applying the obtained experimental data. This data would be useful when carrying out work on cementation of rocks.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the experimental data obtained from practical applications were supplemented and analyzed.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have gone through the manuscript. It focuses on mathematical interpretation and experimental analysis. My major concern lies within the error range and the discussion within the writing. The literature review is not properly presented. Readers will not get the gist of this research through the introduction. A major revision will be required to improve the writing with the technical tone, descriptions, and finally, discussion on the error and other variations. A decision can be made after the first revision. 

 

1.     The title mentions fissure rock body but is not referred anywhere within the manuscript. 

2.     Literature review needs to be presented in a more systematic fashion such as the methodologies, shortcomings, and pertinent gaps. Authors kept on describing other works without any proper clue on what is missing.

3.     L50: The citation number is missing next to Han et al.

4.     L83: What are the different parameters which are missing? They need to be discussed in line with the literature review.

5.     L92: Define Bingham fluids first associating with time-varying viscosities, before going further.

6.     Figure 1 requires more better description to make it understandable to the readers. Similar feedback for Figs 2,3, 5,6.

7.     I will strongly recommend adding a nomenclature.

8.     Data processing module is unclear. Please add more information.

9.     L188: How small in dimension? Provide both qualitative and quantitative information.

10.  L200: Remove the ; and put a .

11.  Authors need to provide convincing and logical reasons why 12% error is acceptable and can be considered as high reliability. Any comparison you can make with other works where errors were bigger? It requires further discussion. 

12.  L250: Please explain the meaning of “the first to increase and then reduce”.

13.  All figures and sub-figures should be referred to within the text. For example, Fig.12a, 12b etc. Please cross-check and make the corrections accordingly. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing after proofreading should be fine.

Author Response

Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

I have gone through the manuscript. It focuses on mathematical interpretation and experimental analysis. My major concern lies within the error range and the discussion within the writing. The literature review is not properly presented. Readers will not get the gist of this research through the introduction. A major revision will be required to improve the writing with the technical tone, descriptions, and finally, discussion on the error and other variations. A decision can be made after the first revision. 

1. The title mentions fissure rock body but is not referred anywhere within the manuscript. 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, provide additional descriptions of fissured rock bodies where appropriate in the text.

2. Literature review needs to be presented in a more systematic fashion such as the methodologies, shortcomings, and pertinent gaps. Authors kept on describing other works without any proper clue on what is missing.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the presentation and content of the literature review were revised.

3. L50: The citation number is missing next to Han et al.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, changes have been completed here.

4.L83: What are the different parameters which are missing? They need to be discussed in line with the literature review.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the missing parameters are added and discussed in the context of the literature review.

5. L92: Define Bingham fluids first associating with time-varying viscosities, before going further.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, complementing the relationship between Bingham fluids and time-varying viscosity.

6. Figure 1 requires more better description to make it understandable to the readers. Similar feedback for Figs 2,3, 5,6.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 are better described.

7. I will strongly recommend adding a nomenclature.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the naming of the full text was checked and revised.

8. Data processing module is unclear. Please add more information.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, modifications to the data processing module have been completed to facilitate the provision of additional information.

9. L188: How small in dimension? Provide both qualitative and quantitative information.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, fracture size information was supplemented.

10. L200: Remove the ; and put a .

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, here a has been added.

11. Authors need to provide convincing and logical reasons why 12% error is acceptable and can be considered as high reliability. Any comparison you can make with other works where errors were bigger? It requires further discussion. 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, interpretation of the test results is explained, and comparative analysis with other tests is added to discuss the reliability of the test results.

12. L250: Please explain the meaning of “the first to increase and then reduce”.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, the meaning of "additions and subtractions" was explained. Here the "first increase and then reduce" is mainly for the slurry pressure decay rate changes, the slurry pressure decay rate is larger in the early part of the slurry pressure, the later part of the decay rate gradually decreases.

13. All figures and sub-figures should be referred to within the text. For example, Fig.12a, 12b etc. Please cross-check and make the corrections accordingly. 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, all graphics and subgraphs have been corrected and additional notes made in the text.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for providing the revised manuscript. I still have some revisions to suggest. 

1. Nomenclature and abbreviations need to be provided in separate sections (check the base MDPI template or any recently published works). Readers need to have a clear list. They are missing. 

2. Ref [35] states "Chinses". Please correct the spelling.

3. The explanation of 12% error acceptance is not sufficient. In Civil Engineering, a 12% error is huge and can have a devastating impact. Either authors need to provide references that 12% is a big improvement compared to other published works in the relevant field

OR

authors need to clearly specify that 12% error is one of the limitations of the study and how the authors aim to improve it. The explanations should pinpoint each aspect in a sense that doesn't make the study invalid. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor. One has been suggested already

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. We appreciate the Editors and Reviews very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Development of grouting test system for rough fissure rock body and research on slurry diffusion law (Manuscript ID: applsci-2606074)”. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as providing important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections. We hope to be met with approval. All the revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following.

Reviewer:

1. Nomenclature and abbreviations need to be provided in separate sections (check the base MDPI template or any recently published works). Readers need to have a clear list. They are missing. 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, Nomenclature and abbreviations appearing in the text have been labeled and explained in accordance with the journal template, and the specific changes are shown in red font in the text.

2.Ref [35] states "Chinses". Please correct the spelling.

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, changes have been completed here, and the same problems with the other references have been corrected.

3. The explanation of 12% error acceptance is not sufficient. In Civil Engineering, a 12% error is huge and can have a devastating impact. Either authors need to provide references that 12% is a big improvement compared to other published works in the relevant field

OR

authors need to clearly specify that 12% error is one of the limitations of the study and how the authors aim to improve it. The explanations should pinpoint each aspect in a sense that doesn't make the study invalid. 

Response: Thank you for your careful review. According to your suggestion, It has been modified in the article, and relevant content has been added: The error observed in this experimental setup is 12%, whereas the equipment developed by scholar Wang [37] at Shandong University has a much higher error rate of 20%. In comparison, this experimental apparatus demonstrates a significant improvement in ensuring the accuracy and scientific validity of test data. This also indicates the higher reliability and reasonableness of this experimental setup.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate the Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will be met with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes,

Zhenhua Li