A Study on the Characteristics of High-Solid-Water Filling Materials with Different Water Contents Based on the Boltzmann Superposition Principle
, Yuhang Xiao 3,*, Man Wang 1,2, Shuaitao Liu 1,2, Zhanbiao Yang 1,2 and Xiaotong Li 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
see the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. In “2.1 Creep data analysis based on Boltzmann superposition principle”, The description of “Figure 2. The comparison of one-time loading curve and graded loading curve processed by Boltzmann superposition principle” is incorrect.
2. In “2.1 Creep data analysis based on Boltzmann superposition principle”, “To be specific, the creep rate of the material is denoted by the ratio of creep strain of speci-mens 30 min before creep and 1h after creep to the total creep strain. On this basis, the influence of different loading modes on the creep behavior of materials is further studied”, lack of relevant content.
3. In “3.1 Test scheme and results”, “The creep behavior of specimens with 61%, 65%, and 69% water contents were tested through graded loading”, How to refer to the water content? Relevant experimental ideas or engineering background should be provided.
4. “Figure 3 (a), (b), and (c) display the creep stress-time curves of high solid water materials whose water content is 61%, 65%, and 69% respectively when the yield strength is 22.5%, 45%, 67.5%, and 90% of the peak uniaxial strength of the specimens” should be strain-time curves.
5. “As the statistics in Table 2 show, the instantaneous strain of the specimen with 61% water content reaches 2.874×10-3 at the first grade of loading, which is far higher than that of the second grade of loading which is 1.344×10-3” ,The instantaneous strain of the first grade of loading should be 2.510 × 10-3.
1. In “2.1 Creep data analysis based on Boltzmann superposition principle”, The description of “Figure 2. The comparison of one-time loading curve and graded loading curve processed by Boltzmann superposition principle” is incorrect.
2. In “2.1 Creep data analysis based on Boltzmann superposition principle”, “To be specific, the creep rate of the material is denoted by the ratio of creep strain of speci-mens 30 min before creep and 1h after creep to the total creep strain. On this basis, the influence of different loading modes on the creep behavior of materials is further studied”, lack of relevant content.
3. In “3.1 Test scheme and results”, “The creep behavior of specimens with 61%, 65%, and 69% water contents were tested through graded loading”, How to refer to the water content? Relevant experimental ideas or engineering background should be provided.
4. “Figure 3 (a), (b), and (c) display the creep stress-time curves of high solid water materials whose water content is 61%, 65%, and 69% respectively when the yield strength is 22.5%, 45%, 67.5%, and 90% of the peak uniaxial strength of the specimens” should be strain-time curves.
5. “As the statistics in Table 2 show, the instantaneous strain of the specimen with 61% water content reaches 2.874×10-3 at the first grade of loading, which is far higher than that of the second grade of loading which is 1.344×10-3” ,The instantaneous strain of the first grade of loading should be 2.510 × 10-3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "A study on the characteristics of high solid water filling materials with different water contents based on Boltzmann Superposition Principle" by Jianguo Zhang, Yuejin Zhou, Yuhang Xiao, Man Wang, Shuaitao Liu, Zhanbiao Yang, Xiaotong Li was submitted for peer review.
I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The authors turned to a very urgent problem: study of the characteristics of the created composite.
The manuscript addresses an interesting topic that has potential for application in mining.
Despite of the actual topic and well-conducted study, the authors have failed to prove the relevance of the study. The manuscript has significant flaws that need to be corrected. Correction of the shortcomings listed below must be done to improve the quality of the manuscript, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of a readers.
1.) From my point of view, this number of keywords is very few. In addition, keywords should be more direct and related to the content of the manuscript. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularize their research and increase interest and citations. But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this comment is advisory.
2.) The abstract is not quite formed correctly. It is very blurry and framed incorrectly. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases from the text and thus formed the abstract. The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the study, its importance for society (i.e. to characterize the problem), identify the methods and materials of the study, and the conclusions should be clearly and briefly formulated. There is no "starting point" in the abstract, that is, information about previous studies (one sentence is enough). From my point of view, in the abstract, such information begins with the statement: "Previously conducted studies have established that ...".
2.1) It is desirable to avoid narrative text in the abstract.
2.2) Try to use words and phrases: an analysis has been carried out; studied; developed; proposed; established and so on. It is advisable to start sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.
2.3) At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; A dependence has been established which is...; A pattern has been revealed...; An efficient system (technology) has been proposed, and so on.
The abstract should be revised.
3.) The manuscript has a weak list of references (20 references in total). But there is no comprehensive coverage of research in terms of geography of citations. No references to international studies in the field, especially on the work of Eastern European, Ukrainian and Russian scientists. There are several references to international studies carried out in the last century. There is only one reference to studies carried out in the last 5 years. This is very little.
The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the authors’ study of the material, the relevance and interest of their research.
3.1.) The depth of study is demonstrated with the number of references – is not sufficient.
3.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – is not sufficient.
3.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - is not sufficient (practically absent).
I ask the authors to take this recommendation seriously. Since you are publishing your manuscript in an international publication, it is necessary to demonstrate the international relevance and interest of this issue. This can be done by analyzing the studies of scientists from different countries. It is imperative to supplement the list of references with studies of scientists from different countries over the past 3-5 years to show geographical (general/global) interest and relevance.
Major revision of References might be sufficient if these tests have been performed. Otherwise, the paper should be considered as rejected in the present form.
Below I present a few papers relevant to this study that could greatly improve the manuscript. The authors have the right to use the material proposed or offer their own versions of international studies to increase the geography of citation.
The reference list must be supplemented.
4.) In the introduction when analyzing previous studies, the authors make inaccuracies or provide information that overloads the text and often their claims are not accompanied with evidence. It is important for readers to know the essence (main idea) of the research you are referring to when analyzing previous work.
In the introduction, it is necessary to analyze the previously completed work and note what has been done, what are the shortcomings, and what has been done incorrectly.
Such shortcomings are present throughout the Introduction. Authors need to revise the introduction, adjust, and supplement their statements with evidence.
4.1) I am not a native speaker, but nevertheless, in my opining, the authors form a very long sentences, which are very difficult to perceive. Such sentences greatly reduce the easy perception of the material.
4.2) In the introduction, the authors refer to several works and quite rightly state what is done in this study. However, the authors do not explain why this study is interesting: what has been done right or wrong, what can be learned from the study, what needs to be corrected or improved and why this research is important.
4.3) From my point of view, the authors have not correctly applied the terminology "high solid water". In any case, I am not aware of this type of material. Perhaps the authors mean "heavy water" ( 2H2O, D2O). Other terms: water-d2; deuterium oxide; Dideuterium monoxide; Deuterated water. If the authors use other material, then it is necessary to explain in detail what it is. If it is "heavy water", then it is necessary to eliminate the inaccuracy.
5.) From my point of view, the authors abuse the names of scientists when mentioning the study, for example: Zhang Yaoping et al. A reference [10] is sufficient. If the reader is interested in the name of the researcher, then it is easy to refer to the references list. It is important for the reader to know the essence (main idea) of the disclosed issue, not the name of the researcher.
5.) I would recommend avoiding group references, for example [1-5] or [17-20]. From my point of view, allowed up to three; more than three references are not acceptable and must be deciphered. Each paper you refer is unique and the studies you refer deserve more proper and careful review to demonstrate (and prove) its importance for the current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the essence of each study and their need for your work. It has already been noted in recommendation (4.2) that you have many statements without indicating awareness. You will avoid group references by correcting this fact.
6.) At the end of the introduction, there is no brief conclusion of the analytical study of earlier papers. The authors did not summarize their analysis and did not identify unresolved issues. This conclusion should make it possible to characterize the actual question posed, the purpose of the study and the tasks to be solved to achieve this goal. For example: Analyzing the above, it can be noted that ... is a very topical issue. Therefore, the purpose of this study is ... and to achieve this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1); 2); ... Such a conclusion allows the reader to understand the vector of the study, and the authors to correctly formulate the conclusions. It needs to be improved.
7.) Considering the comments (3) and (4), I would like to note that the authors have very poorly disclosed the main subject of the study.
In recent years, many studies have been carried out on the study of the composite. For example,
7.1) Kongar-Syuryun, Ch.; Aleksakhin, A.; Khayrutdinov, A.; Tyulyaeva, Y. Research of rheological characteristics of the mixture as a way to create a new backfill material with specified characteristics. Materials Today: Proceedings 2021, 38, 2052-2054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.139.
In this study, the authors study a material based on water-soluble ores tailings. Particular attention is paid to the material transportability with the maintaining the specified strength characteristics. Since the backfill is to be transported to the place of laying, it is necessary to pay attention to rheological characteristics or analyze previously performed work in this area.
7.2) Ermolovich, E.A.; Ivannikov, A.L.; Khayrutdinov, M.M.; Kongar-Syuryun, C.B.; Tyulyaeva, Y.S. Creation of a Nanomodified Backfill Based on the Waste from Enrichment of Water-Soluble Ores. Materials 2022, 15(10), 3689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15103689.
This work is similar in terms of goals, objectives and research methods to the manuscript submitted for peer review. The authors study a composite based on waste from the processing of water-soluble ores. To increase the strength characteristics of the created material, fullerene-astarlene is used as a nanomodified additive. From my point of view, this work should be used in the analysis of previously performed studies, since it uses the methods of mechanical, microstructural, X-ray phase and petrographic analyzes to confirm arguments.
7.3) Kongar-Syuryun, Ch.B.; Faradzhov, V.V.; Tyulyaeva, Yu.S.; Khayrutdinov, A.M. Effect of activating treatment of halite flotation waste in backfill mixture preparation. Mining Informational and Analytical Bulletin 2021, 2021(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.25018/0236-1493-2021-1-0-43-57.
7.4) Khayrutdinov, A.; Kongar-Syuryun, Ch.; Kowalik, T.; Faradzhov, V. Improvement of the backfilling characteristics by activation of halite enrichment waste for non-waste geotechnology. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 867(1), 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/867/1/012018.
In studies (7.3), (7.4), the authors propose the activation treatment of tailings before mixing to improve the strength and rheological characteristics. Activation treatment of the components or the addition of some kind of activating additive is one of the ways to improve the quality of the created material.
From my point of view, the works (7.3) and (7.4) will suit the authors in the analysis of previously completed works to demonstrate various options for controlling the characteristics of the created composite.
If the authors become familiar with the works presented in (7.1), (7.2), (7.3), (7.4) they will be able to properly form the introduction, enrich their manuscript with international research by scientists from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Russia, Germany and demonstrate the depth of their material, as well as eliminate the remarks (3) and (4).
8) Of particular interest to me, and I think readers as well, is a composite and its comopition. Readers need to know all this so that they can repeat the experiment.
9.) When describing an experiment to create a composite, you have to specify:
9.1) the brand of Portland cement and preferably the cement manufacturer that the authors used (or other type of binder that was used);
9.2) how was the convergence of the results achieved;
9.3) how was the homogenization (mixing) carried out; what is the mixing tool; what is the mixing velocity and time;
9.4.) what is the sequence of filling of the components;
9.5) it is also not clear how the homogeneity of the composition (thoroughness of mixing) was achieved, provided that the amount of some components in the composite is minimal;
9.6) what equipment was used to study samples for loading;
9.7) how underground (mine) conditions were achieved during the hardening of composite;
9.8) necessary to indicate the composition of the composite being created: binder / aggregate / muffler
9.8) necessary to indicate how long the samples were held for strength development before they were loaded;
9.9) necessary to indicate the dimensions of the samples produced;
9.10) necessary to indicate how many samples were prepared.
To eliminate remarks (8) – (9), I would recommend reading the work (7.2). The recommended paper is similar to the one submitted for peer review. The article (7.2) describes the methodology in sufficient details.
10.) The conclusion is not correctly formed. Conclusion – summary of the study without repeating the wording given earlier in the manuscript. It is exactly the way of presenting the material that makes it easier for the reader to perceive the information presented. The mistake of incorrectly forming conclusion is a consequence of the incorrect presentation of the introduction noted by me in remark (7) due to the fact that when writing the introduction, the aims and objectives are not formulated.
The authors mention the object of the study in the conclusion, again referring to the methods, which is inappropriate for this section. The authors repeat throughout the manuscript. In my opinion, this information is unnecessary, as it has already been mentioned in the previous sections.
Conclusions should briefly characterize the result of the study, for example:
As a result of the study
(1) the dependence of … was obtained.
(2) it was found that ...
(3) and so on.
The conclusion needs to be revised.
Summary: The manuscript is not a finished research work. The corrections are needed. The chosen research topic is relevant. From my point of view, the authors failed to present their research correctly and clearly, which reduced its value and worsened the ease of perception of the material presented. From my point of view, the manuscript cannot be published in the open press without correction in accordance with my suggestions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "A study on the characteristics of high solid water filling materials with different water contents based on Boltzmann Superposition Principle" by Jianguo Zhang, Yuejin Zhou, Yuhang Xiao, Man Wang, Shuaitao Liu, Zhanbiao Yang, Xiaotong Li was submitted for second review.
As can be seen from the submitted manuscript and the explanatory note to the review, the authors did a lot of work to make changes in accordance with the comments.
The revised manuscript is a completed scientific study on a highly relevant topic: study of the characteristics of the created composite. The revised version of the manuscript, in my opinion, fully satisfies the requirements of a scientific article and can be published in the open press.
