Numerical Simulation and Experimental Study on Single Point Blasting of Ice Jam of Heilongjiang River Based on ANSYS/LSDYNA
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1) Normally an abstract should include the generality of the topic along with briefly stating the purpose of the study undertaken any meaningful conclusions based on the obtained results. Hence, the abstract is needs rewriting.
(2) Keywords should be revised. The title words should not be repeated here.
(3) The innovation of the study should be highlighted.
(4) The resolution of Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 is low.
(5) The literature review is very weak.
(6) The theory of model is missing.
(7) The number of references is low.
(8) Eq. (1) should be rewritten.
(
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article addresses an important issue concerning the possibility of dealing with ice jams, which often occur on rivers located in moderate and cold climatic zones, which threaten with the formation of congestion floods. The work may be an important research study, provided that a number of significant changes are introduced, which are listed below:
Can the work have an application dimension, can the obtained results be put into practice, or is it only art for art?
- no localization drawing, the coordinates alone are insufficient (the authors should make this drawing)
- the rest of the drawings in the text are rather sloppy. in figure no. 1 one of the descriptions protrudes out of the frame. the descriptions in the other figures are too small and illegible.
- figure 12 is missing, figure 13 is after 11. Generally, I think that there should be no drawings in the summary
- Some tables use different fonts (Tab. 5, Tab 6)
- There are two chapters in the paper titled as conclusion, and no discussion of the results.
- virtually no literature review, not only of the method used or similar methods, but generally no literature review of river ice formation
- only 17 items were cited, the literature list was also edited very carelessly, a lot of typos and missing spaces
It is worth looking at and quoting at least some of the works posted on the following websites:
https://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/8132.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589915522000025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/river-ice-jam
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The conclusion section should be revised. What are the author's own viewpoints? What are the major findings and how they are addressing the left-behind research gaps and current challenges? It is better that the conclusion section is not presented in the form of numbering.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has been partially changed, but the quality of some changes leaves much to be desired. First of all, the quality and legibility of the figures made did not change: Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 still have too small and illegible font in the legends and on the axes. The white font in some of the drawings is not legible, still and I suggest: enlarge it and make it black.
Why are the photos signed as diagrams? It is not clear to me.
The secret to me is where the authors hid figure 15, which they cite in the text (verse 550). I notice many editing errors that also appeared in the original version of the text.
Finally the authors completed the literature review a bit, however, they omitted the position suggested by the reviewer. I recommend re-revising, especially the editorial side and improving the quality of the figures made (especially their signatures).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of my comments were taken into account, so I believe that the article may be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
