Vibration Response of the Interfaces in Multi-Layer Combined Coal and Rock Mass under Impact Load

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper evaluates the potential dynamic damage of a series of layered coal and rocks, particularly by an experimental small-scale model made off five layers of fine sandstone, medium sandstone, coal, coarse sandstone, and mudstone; the vibration response characteristics of the interfaces between coal and the other rocks under impact load were preliminarily revealed. This evaluation, which is the purpose of this research, requires further study but this is not sufficiently emphasized in the end. Some discussion should be added on the uncertainties of the findings and the necessary limitations on using the proposed amplitude attenuation law of interface vibration under impact load. Therefore, the “Conclusions” chapter can also be reviewed.

Statements like “the dynamic damage of a series of layered rocks is the important factor causing geological disasters”, or similar, should be rewritten – in fact, it is this reviewer’s perspective that it is one of the factors, but not the only one.

 

Some refinements of the writing must also be made: the misuse of rock “masses” (coal is also a rock), the “at home” (line 47), the point in “Figure. 3” and many others, the “were shown in Figure…” (they “are” shown), text formatting, the lack of several spaces between words as well as between the last digit of a number and the correspondent unit of measure; a final reference without number and conversely, a number “26” on the text that has no correspondence at the list of references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The following comments need to be addressed for further refinement of research paper:

1. First sentence of abstract is to long it should be splitter into two sentences.

2. The significance of this research need to be mentioned at the end of abstract for ease understanding of readers.

3. Introduction section need to be revised by including latest and relevant literature.

4. A clear research gap need to be added at the end of reviewed literature in the introduction section.

5. Authors are advised to avoid too long sentences.

6. Second paragraph of introduction need to be revised.

7. In table 1, the titles units like /kg should be replaced by (Kg). The same may be implemented for other units as well.

8. 2.3 section consist of too long sentence which can't be understand. This need to be revised.

9. Line 114 figure 3-figure 5 should be replaced by figure 3-5. 

10. Comment for table 1 should be considered for all tables.

11. A separate discussion section need to be included to summarize the findings of the research for better understanding of the readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx