Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the performance of the gun hole plugging material is simulated and experimented, the mechanical properties of the gun hole plugging material and the movement law after force failure and force are studied, the optimal ratio of the gun hole blocking material is tested through indoor experiments, and the laboratory optimal ratio experiment is carried out in the field test to achieve remarkable results, and the bulk rate after blasting is reduced. Overall, I find the paper well-structured and informative, yet with some details that deserved more attention. I would suggest that this study could be considered for publication after revisions as follows.

1. If this paper is aimed at the research of gun hole blocking materials, can the modified ratio of gun hole blocking materials be highlighted in the abstract.

2. The reasons for choosing the open-pit coal mine as the test site can be added, and its representativeness and necessity can be clarified.

3. Please check the units, many places are not marked, such as 327 lines.

4. Please check the table and try to ensure that the number of decimal places before and after is the same. In addition, there should be a space between the number and the unit.

5. The introduction recommends adding references to the latest relevant studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.      The paper has too many contents. Please shorten it with the main study remained.

2.      Paper title. “Research on the” should be removed.

3.      Paper language should be improved. The current version is not clear for readers.

4.      Abstract should be consistent with the paper title while some results should be presented in abstract for readers.

5.      Please check the citation style if it is consistent with the journal.

6.      Fig.2. Why is it mentioned as “Thesis framework”? Please check. In addition, there is no description for Fig. 2 in the paper.

7.      There is no description of Fig. 3 in the main text while it appears as a figure.

8.      Fig. 4. The fracture extension occurs suddenly without any technical details.

9.      There is no description on Fig. 4 in the main text.

10.   How to achieve the results in Fig. 5 is weird.

11.   There are some numerical results presented by the authors. I would suggest adding some verifications from in-situ tests or indoor tests to suggest the correctness of the numerical method.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Find in attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments now.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper could be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx