Research on Mechanical Behavior and Energy Evolution of Coal and Rocks with Different Thin Spray-On Liners Thickness under Uniaxial Compressive Loading

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I recommend extension of Discussions. The results presented worth more discussions. Also I recommend extension of Conclusions.

At pg. 10/20, r. 230, must to be eliminate "_" before "similar"

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper focuses on the mechanical behavior and energy development of coal and rock with different TSLs thickness under UCS. The research is of great innovations in combining the TSLs with coal and rock as a whole part. My suggestion is minor revision, but it is necessary to polish the English writing and the following drawbacks need to be improved before publishing.

1. Mechanical analysis of TSLs: I think it is appropriatethat the viscosity of A and B must be similar, is not the thickness in the experiment.
2. The reaction with high temperature and pressure: if the TSLs will be used in-situ project, specific data of temperature and pressure can be offered? The data is not the necessary if the research is confidential.
3. Table 2: it is recommend that the invalid elastic modulus and uniaxial compressive strength of specimen used NA which means not available, not with -or /.
4. Analysis of compressive mechanical properties of specimen: I think the comparison of the white sandstone, yellow sandstone and coal with the same thickness should be presented which intensify the effect of the TSLs rendered on different rock and coal.
5. Energy evolution analysis:  the author should be deduce some conclusion or summary rather than some data.
6. Discussion: it is recommended that discussion will be comprehensive such as the different thickness of TSLs exert effect, and efficiency improved base on uncoated specimen.
7. The details of this article need to be revised to increase the readability, please correct the following:

    (1) The citation should be presented.

(2) The symbols in the formula should be inclined letters, such as σ_p.

(3) blank lines in Lines 202 and 213 should be modified.

8.Line 213 an 214: the curve can’t be obtained maybe the data is invalid, not the specimen was broken due to wrong operation, please check it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript mainly studied the uniaxial compressive mechanical response feature of two kinds of sandstone and coal with different thin spray-on liners thickness based on laboratory tests and theoretical analysis. The paper is interesting but I think it needs to be improved. Below are some of the comments:
(1) The UCS of the TSL coated coal and two kinds of sandstone specimens have been enhanced in varying degrees, however, it seems that the increment of strength is small. This may be related to the adhesion between the specimen and TSL, such as debonding and peeling of TSL. It is suggested that the author supplement the analysis of bonding effect between specimen and TSL.
(2) It is noted that this manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.
(3) The manuscript contains many unfortunate errors, examples:
1) Page 3, Line 74: Figure 2 is not mentioned in the manuscript.
2) Page 4, Line 110: the unit in Figure 3 is missing.
3) Figure or Fig.?  should be consistent.
etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the manuscript is acceptable in its present form.