Experimental Investigation on the Granite Erosion Characteristics of a Variable Cross-Section Squeezed Pulsed Water Jet

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Paper is in good form and acceptable after language correction.

2. Results are not supported with previous studies.

3. Replace old citation with latest one.

4. Objectives are not clear for readers.

Author Response

1. Paper is in good form and acceptable after language correction.

Authors reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The entire draft has been language polished by Elsevier.

2. Results are not supported with previous studies.

Authors reply: Thank you for your careful review. We have revised the conclusions of the draft to align with the research in the draft.

3. Replace old citation with latest one.

Authors reply: Thank you for your reminder. We have updated some of the old citations.

4. Objectives are not clear for readers.

Authors reply: We have made revisions to the preface of the draft to highlight the engineering value of pulse water jet breaking hard rock technology. Thank you again for your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Improving the technology of destruction of hard rocks is an important area of science for mining and the construction industry. The author's research is devoted to characteristics of a variable cross-section squeezed pulsed water jet for granite erosion, which is a promising area.

The following question about this article:

The «Introduction» does not say which enterprises use the studied technology for the destruction of hard rocks, what results have been achieved and what are the disadvantages in its application.

Table 1 does not list the units of «nozzle diameter»

Missing explanations of parameters in Equation

Source 56 is missing in References

Author Response

1、Table 1 does not list the units of «nozzle diameter»

Authors reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the relevant units in the draft.

2、Missing explanations of parameters in Equation

Authors reply: Thank you for your observation. We have added relevant formula explanations in the draft.

3、Source 56 is missing in References

Authors reply: We have added relevant references and thank you very much for your detailed review of the draft.

Reviewer 3 Report

Poor quality (blurry) of photos and pictures but I think in "printed" version they will be clear and sharp.

I feel lack of detection of failure mechanism of granites. What is dominant? Shear? Tension? Extension or compression?

Author Response

1、Poor quality (blurry) of photos and pictures but I think in "printed" version they will be clear and sharp.

Authors reply: We are very sorry for the blurry image quality caused by software compression. We have made comprehensive corrections to ensure the high-definition display of the paper images. Thank you for your feedback.

2、I feel lack of detection of failure mechanism of granites. What is dominant? Shear? Tension? Extension or compression?

Authors reply: Thank you for your feedback. Regarding the erosion of granite by pulsed water jets, our research shows that it is caused by the tensile water hammer stress wave generated during the impact of the jet tip. The reflection and superposition of tensile stress waves within the granite create cracks inside the rock, which provide a water wedge channel for subsequent fluid damage to the rock. The fluid forms tensile failure at the crack tip inside the rock, and cracks the rock along the cracks, forming failure pits. We have improved the damage mechanism of pulsed water jet on granite in the article.

Reviewer 4 Report

General comments: The authors experimented to understand the erosion characteristics of the granite rock using SPWJ. The study is interesting however detailed comments are as follows:

1.      How will this study improve the rock-breaking performance of SPWJ?

2.      The research gaps are not very clear. The gaps must be identified clearly.

3.      The study performed by the authors can be compared with the studies by reference numbers 49 to 51. The authors can specify how their study is better as compared to the previous studies.

4.      The literature review can be improved based on comments 2 and 3.

5.      The quality of the figures should be improved. The references can be provided if the figures are taken from any source.

6.      The quality of graphical representations is very poor (from Figure 16 and onwards). It should be improved.

7.      The limitations of the study should be mentioned too.

8.      Some latest references can be provided.

9.      The authors should remove the self-citations if they are irrelevant to this study.

Author Response

 

1. How will this study improve the rock-breaking performance of SPWJ?

Authors reply: Thank you for your detailed feedback. As a new jet technology proposed by our team, SPWJ is currently in the research and development stage. The research work of this article mainly explores the damage mechanism of jet on granite through rock breaking experiments, providing a reference basis for further commercial applications. We have added relevant expressions in the article to explain the research significance and purpose of this article.

 

2. The research gaps are not very clear. The gaps must be identified clearly.

Authors reply: SPWJ technology is a new type of jet developed on the basis of existing pulsed water jet technology. Based on your feedback, we have strengthened the expression of the cutting-edge part to help readers understand the research purpose of the article.

 

3. The study performed by the authors can be compared with the studies by reference numbers 49 to 51. The authors can specify how their study is better as compared to the previous studies.

Authors reply: Thank you for your suggestion. For references 49 51, they have made a significant contribution to the mechanism of jet motion, providing a good reference for the research in this article. Their research mainly focuses on the generation of pressure. The focus of this article is on the process of new jet erosion and damage to granite, which belongs to the application process of previous research and belongs to different research focuses.

 

4. The literature review can be improved based on comments 2 and 3.

Authors reply: Thank you for your suggestion. The preface literature review has been revised.

 

5. The quality of the figures should be improved. The references can be provided if the figures are taken from any source.

Authors reply: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made improvements to the quality of all images and annotated the relevant cited literature images.

 

6. The quality of graphical representations is very poor (from Figure 16 and onwards). It should be improved.

Authors reply: Thank you for your meticulous and patient feedback. We have corrected the images in the article and apologize for the poor image quality caused by software compression.

 

7. The limitations of the study should be mentioned too.

Authors reply: Thank you for your reminder. We have already explained the research shortcomings of the article in the discussion section.

 

8. Some latest references can be provided.

Authors reply: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have replaced some of the literature with the latest ones.

 

9. The authors should remove the self-citations if they are irrelevant to this study.

Authors reply: Thank you for your rigorous suggestion. We have thoroughly reviewed and deleted the self referenced parts that are not related to this article. Thank you again for your detailed and comprehensive review of this article.