Experimental Study of the Mechanical and Acoustic Emission Characteristics of Sandstone by Using High-Temperature Water-Cooling Cycles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
1) The authors should use track-and-changes mode to conduct the revision.
2) How many tests for the data in the line profile such as Figure 5. Error bar should be added if the data points was averaged.
3) Even Chinese character appeared in the Figure.
4) Some figure details are not described in the caption, such as the Red line in Figure 9, the Inserted figure in Figure 11. Please check all this type of issues.
Language issues commonly exist.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
1- Omit the last version of the texts and use only final ones. Now, original and new texts are inside each other and it is confusing for reader.
2-Please provide necessary strong-related reference or data support for many explanations and discussions in the “results and discussion section” of paper. Many sentences and explanations have no references yet! I do not mean increase literature in introduction. In fact, you have to compare your results with previous ones in the “results and discussion section” of paper and add them in your work. The results in the paper are only presented without any discussion.
English is weak. Improve it. For example:
line 41: what is “enable s economic”?
line 150: kN is correct not KN
Many mistakes like these are seen in the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript delves into the alterations in the physical and mechanical characteristics of sandstone subjected to multiple cycles of high-temperature water cooling, while also examining the resulting damage mechanisms. The related conclusions from this research could offer valuable references and guidance for practical engineering applications. The following points are open for discussion with the authors:
1. Avoid using track changes mode.
2. The paper's language exhibits notable issues, including grammatical errors and lack of coherence, resulting in difficulties in comprehending the content. There are instances where Chinese characters are present (Figure 7).
3. The literature regarding the state of the art from the last three years is inadequately covered.
4. It is recommended to describe Figure 2 using textual explanations within the manuscript, rather than including the visual representation.
5. Either Figure 1 or Figure 3 would suffice; there's no need to include both.
6. The explanation of the mechanisms leading to failure is insufficient, and this aspect is also missing from the conclusion.
7. How applicable and reliable are the empirical formulas used for fitting?
Addressing these points will significantly enhance the overall quality and comprehensibility of the paper.
The paper's language exhibits notable issues, including grammatical errors and lack of coherence, resulting in difficulties in comprehending the content. There are instances where Chinese characters are present (Figure 7).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I am satisfied with the response.
Author Response
Thank you very much.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript can be accepted after language polishment.
Moderate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advice, I have edited it in English!
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors studied the mechanical and acoustic emission characteristics of sandstone under compression and different temperature cycles. Overall the work is ok, some suggestions are provided for improving.
1) The language issues, though not that serious, still exist everythere, please polish the language for the whole manuscript.
2) The conclusion part is too tedious, please condense it.
3) For Figure 1, there is no scale bar, please add the description. Same issue for Figure 3.
4) For Figure 4 and other similar Figures, how many repeats were conducted for each data point in the figure?
5) For Figure 9, what do you mean by "Mean"? If it is the averaged data, why the data deviation is so large? Same question for Figure 10.
6) For Figure 11, there are three different line profiles, please clarify them in the Figure. Same issue for Figure 12.
7) For Figure 13, what do you mean by "Mean" and "Fitted curves"? What's the meaning to get "Mean" and "Fitted curves"? Same issue for Figure 14.
8) Are there any microstructural characterization for the fractured surface?
A lot of typos and grammar problems exist.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The table presentation of the measured results is missing - the published results obtained could not be checked.
It is possible to determine approximate functions based on the presented diagrams (e.g. Figs 6, 9, 10) - analyzing these results should be interesting and useful.
Reference list:
Cite [1] is missing
[2]: Special issue of the journal
The references are mainly Chinese and old (the most recent is -1 in 2020)
I suggest a revision of the Reference list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript studies the variation of physical and mechanical properties of sandstone after high temperature-water cooling cycle. The acoustic emission characteristics of the sandstone samples under axial compression are also analyzed. A damage variable is proposed to characterize the damage of sandstone after high temperature-water cooling cycles. The manuscript is not ready for acceptance in its current form. The detailed comments are as follows:
1. More references are needed in the introduction section.
2. Descriptions should be added in the introduction section about the purpose and novelty of this paper.
3. What standards are used for the sandstone samples? Reference should be added in section 2.1 (line 87).
4. In section 2.2, why the water cooling process lasts for 8 h? The water cooling cycle should be explained more in detail. What does “firing” mean in Fig. 2?
5. A magnified figure should be provided in addition to Fig. 4 to indicate the exact position of the acoustic emission sensors on the rock sample.
6. What does “poor quality” mean in Fig. 6?
7. More explanations are needed to clarify the temperature threshold described in line 196-199.
8. It is suggested that the characteristics of the failure pattern of the rock samples be analyzed in section 3. And the figures of the samples after loading should also be added to illustrate the failure pattern.
9. The damage variable only considers the influence of elastic modulus. What is the influence of the compressive strength? Please also discuss how the damage variable can be applied in related studies involving damage on rocks due to high temperature.
10. Many typos and grammar errors can be found throughout the manuscript. Here are some examples. In Line 128, a full stop is missing in “the acoustic emission The amplitude”; in Line 182-186, basically two sentences with the same meaning are repeated; in line 205, “Figure 4” should be Figure 7? In line 375, “This phenomenon indicates that when” should be deleted.
11. English needs to be improved. The expressions and grammar need to be checked throughout the manuscript.
The quality of English language of this manuscript is rather poor. Extensive editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript examines the impact of cyclic water injection on the mechanical and acoustic emission in sandstone. I have completed my evaluation of this manuscript and, due to the numerous fundamental errors, it is not suitable for publication. Please check the key comments below.
· In a paper suggesting a new, novel methodology and its applicability, the methodology section is critically important, and it should be complete and verifiable. In the current manuscript, however, there are logical gaps, missing explanations, grammar errors, and mistakes in equations, thus it still requires considerable improvements to be completed.
· Many factors, such as fluid type, temperature differences, and rock properties, influence rock failure. However, these factors are not discussed in this manuscript.
· The effect of thermally induced fractures refers to the creation or propagation of fractures in rock formations due to thermal changes. When rocks are exposed to significant temperature variations, such as heating or cooling, thermal stresses can develop within the rock mass. So What is the effect of thermal induced fracture in this experiment?
· The last paragraph of the introduction must clearly address the research gap and the possible solution suggested for the issue raised by the current research work.
· The quality of Figure 4 needs to be improved.
· What are the major sources of error in the experiment
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
1- Please, provide numerical results in the abstract.
2- Mention the gap of the previous studies and the objectives of your research in the introduction section.
3- Line 143: Fig.5 is correct not Fig.
4- Please provide necessary strong-related reference or data support for many explanations and discussions in the paper. Many explanations have no reference.
5- The colors in Fig.7 are very similar. Use different colors so that it gets clear for the reader.
6- Line 205: it is Fig.7 not Fig.4.
7- Compare the results of your study with the results of the previous studies in the discussion section.
8- Line 220: “It can be found that the stress-strain curves for each specimen in uniaxial compression tests have four stages: compression density, elasticity, yielding and damage.” Show these stages on one of the curves.
9- Show strains by percentage (%) in Fig.8.
10- Improve the English. For example: rewrite lines: 195-199,217-220,242-245,247-249,282-285,331-334,449-453
11- Lines 220-222 and 233-235 are the same.
12- Lines 240-241: give reference for this statement: “when the stress is approximately 90% of the peak strength, the specimen enters the yielding deformation phase”
13- Check the figure numbers. For example: line 286 is figure 11 not figure 10.
14- The quality of figures 11 and 12 is not good. They are unclear.
15- What is T in equation 3?
16- What are the limitations and applications of the study?
17- Number of references are few. Only 16 reference was used. Use more recent references preferably from 2020 until 2023.
The English should be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The language is currently unreadable, please delete the old phrases, and highlight the revised words to make it clearer.
The language is currently unreadable, please delete the old phrases, and highlight the revised words to make it clearer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
n/a
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Some revisions were made in response to the comments. Questions still exist that need to be addressed.
1. It is rather difficult to read with the original text not crossed out in the paper.
2. Reference is needed for the standards used for the sandstone samples. Refer to Question 3 of the first round of review.
3. Refer to Question 7 of the first round of review. The temperature threshold “between 400 and 500 °C” need to be explained more in detail, as the current results cannot support this assertion. For example, the compressive of samples at 500 °C (and at 400 °C) is at the same level or even higher that that at lower temperature of 200 °C (Fig.8 (d))
4. It is recommended the expressions and grammar be corrected by an English native speaker.
The quality of English language in the manuscript is low. Extensive editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
1- Abstract is lengthy. Make it shorter.
2- Line 137: change “at home and abroad” with other words.
3- There are many errors. Such as:
Line 224: FigTable 1.
Line 226: FigureTable 5 High temperature - water cooling cycle1.
Line 317: in Figure 8. It can be foundFigure 8.
Line 354: cycles The. A decrease
Line 342: rock sample strength issamples
Line 553: from flake flaking to
Line 82: wave velocity of . [12] on
There are many errors like that. Modify them all.
4- The parameters in Table 1 have no units.
5- Please provide necessary strong-related reference or data support for many explanations and discussions in the “results and discussion section” of paper. Many sentences and explanations have no references yet!
6- The colors in Fig.7 are very similar. Use different colors so that it gets clear for the reader. It has not been modified yet! Why there is two figures in Fig.7?
7- Show strains by percentage (%) in Fig.8. The modified figures are not correct yet.
9- Fig.4: what is the Chinese word?
English needs to be improved yet.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
There are still serious language issues. Please polish the language before it can be accepted.
There are still serious language issues. Please polish the language before it can be accepted.
