Seepage Characteristics and Failure Prediction during the Complete Stress–Strain Process of Limestone under High Water Pressure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a good area of research and we still need these types of studies to investigate the behavior of specimen under high water pressure. There are some suggestions/comments that the authors should take take:

 

1. In introduction, I do not see a clear problem statement. In addition, the authors must check the errors in references in the text. 

2. Why do you have section 1.1 in introduction and there is no any 1.2 section? In this way, you need to delete 1.1 and write everything under section 1 only. 

3. Some of your figures are low quality. In addition, make your figures colorful to have a better impact to the readers. 

4. Axis X in Figure 4b is incomplete.

5. Is it better to define Model1-3 in a separate paragraph. 

6. I do not see any discussion section before conclusion. This would help the other researchers to see your results better when you compare them with the previous studies.

7. What about validation phase? I suggest to have a validation phase so that you can  introduce this model to be used by the other researchers. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

Can be improved：

Point1: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Response 1：The introduction has included most of the literature, and the remaining references are identified in the text.

Point2: Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Response 2：References cited in this paper are related to this study.

Point3: Is the research design appropriate?

Response 3：The conclusions of this paper are derived by combining physical experiments with numerical simulation. Due to the limitations of physical experiments, it is difficult to observe the whole process of crack initiation, propagation and penetration, and to reveal the flow process of water in shear cracks. Therefore, after the physical experiment is completed, numerical simulation is used to make up for the deficiency of physical experiment, and the conclusion of this paper is derived.

Point4: Are the methods adequately described?

Response 4：The physical experiment method has been introduced both in experiment process and result. Numerical simulation method This paper introduces the parameters of the model and the results, as for the operation process, due to space reasons, not introduced.

Point5: Are the results clearly presented?

Response 5：The results obtained from physical experiments and numerical simulations are described in detail.

Point6: Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Response 6：In this paper, the physical experiment and numerical simulation results, and then through the acoustic emission verification, the final conclusion. Therefore, the results of this paper support the conclusions of this paper.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors：

Point1：In introduction, I do not see a clear problem statement. In addition, the authors must check the errors in references in the text.

Response 1：In the introduction, it is also of great significance to study the rock seepage characteristics related to time and fracture. Based on this, it is helpful to improve the stability prediction and prediction of rock slope by discussing the seepage characteristics of low permeability rock during fracture process. In this paper, the permeability of low permeability rock fracture process is studied by physical experiment and numerical simulation.

Point2：Why do you have section 1.1 in introduction and there is no any 1.2 section? In this way, you need to delete 1.1 and write everything under section 1 only.

Response 2：Amended in the text.

Point3：Some of your figures are low quality. In addition, make your figures colorful to have a better impact to the readers. 

Response 3：Amended in the text.。

Point4：Axis X in Figure 4b is incomplete.

Response 4：Amended in the text.

Point5：Is it better to define Model1-3 in a separate paragraph.

Response 5：Amended in the text.

Point6：I do not see any discussion section before conclusion. This would help the other researchers to see your results better when you compare them with the previous studies

Response 6：In this paper, the seepage characteristics and the formation of seepage channels of limestone under high seepage pressure are studied through physical experiments and numerical simulation. Compared with previous studies, the rock permeability selected in this paper is low, and such rock seepage phenomenon is difficult to observe. Under the action of load, cracks are generated. When the cracks are penetrated, the permeability increases sharply, which is extremely unfavorable to the slope safety. Finally, this paper puts forward a new idea to predict landslide by using God emission to locate the position of micro cracks.

Point7：What about validation phase? I suggest to have a validation phase so that you can introduce this model to be used by the other researchers. 

Response 7：This paper mainly studies the seepage characteristics of limestone and the formation of seepage channels under high permeability pressure, and improves the prediction accuracy of low permeability jointed rock landslide by combining acoustic emission. The validation will take place in subsequent work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of work is interesting, however, it needs substantial corrections. My comments are as follows:

1- Page 2 Line 66: what do you mean with good permeability? high permeability or low. Please explain by citing to relevant references.

2- Page 1 line 28: Please insert the section number.

3- Page 2 lines 60-61: Please explain in detail the mentioned scare studies and then justify your work novelty.

4- Page 3 Lines 110-126: “Error! References sources are not found…” Please fix the issues.

5-Page 3 line 114: The cubic law may be become invalid and the issue should be investigated both in the physical modeling and numerical simulation regarding the Forcheimer number.

6- Page 3 line 120: Please write Eq.1 in suitable format and cite its reference.

7-Page 4 lines 140-145: How were the confining pressures as well as the axial pressures adopted in three independent directions?  

8- Page 2 lines 82-84: Why was plane model adopted to simulate the model tests? As explained in Q7, because three independent directions were adopted to apply the confining pressures as well as the axial pressures, I think, three dimensional finite element method (3D FEM) should be implemented to simulate the problem. 

9- Page 6 section 3: which method (FEM, FDM,..) was implemented to simulate the problem?

10- Moreover please explain in detail what was the constitutive model adopted for simulation?

11- Please perform a comprehensive compare between the obtained results with those reported for other types of rocks, for example granite and so on, available in the literature.

12- Please extend the work focusing on the application of the obtained results for investigating the rock slope stability. The issue can be illustrated by using some case studies.  

13- The Figures should be numbered correctly to match with the text and their quality should be improved.

14- The whole text should be reconsidered according the standard format and English writing.   

Author Response

Since only one attachment can be uploaded, I ' ll put your comments and suggestions back in the references to the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This work addressed the seepage characteristics and failure prediction during the complete stress–strain process of limestone under high water pressure. The structure and the English of the paper must be improved. Moreover, authors are asked to further address the following queries:
[1] The structure of the abstract should be reviewed trying to follow a more logical path in terms of summary, e.g.: purpose, design/methodology/approach, results, originality/value.
[2] The manuscript present some errors what is seems compiling the bibliography, that must be addressed in the revised manuscript.
[3] 2.1. Test system and procedures: It is not clear or described how the axial strain that it then plotted in Fig. 4. The resolution and overall appearance of plots in Fig. 4 must be improved. Their formatting is not acceptable for a modern scientific paper.
[4] Pag 3; line 120: variable such as "Jorq" in Eq. (1) must the properly defined and described. Use \noindent after equations.
[5] Fig 2 (c) for instance is not clear regarding "enter the loading roam". This figure should be improved for readability.
[6] 3.1. Numerical calculation method and numerical model: more details regarding the FE model must be given. What softwaere was used? How about element type selection, mesh convergence, etc...?
[7] 3.1. Numerical calculation method and numerical model: what FE modelling approach was implemented to simulate the failure? Have the authors thought about using crack formation and propagation by a cohesive modelling approach ?
[8] Fig. 11 for instance must be improved in terms of presentation and formatting!
Other remarks: - References are mostly from chine documents. It seems that the state-of-the-art is not complete with relevant work at the international level. - The English in general can be improved.

Author Response

Since only one attachment can be uploaded, I ' ll put your comments and suggestions back in the references to the article

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have checked your responses.  Unfortunately, the manuscript was not modified according to the responses. Please look into the PDF of your revised manuscript and responses, in which I have marked the corrections needing to be performed and modify your manuscript accordingly. 

Comments for author File: Comments.rar

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in the current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf