Uniaxial Reloading Damage Characteristics of Critically Damaged Coal Samples at Different Confining Pressure Unloading Spans
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different perimeter pressure unloading spans
by Wang P. et al.
It is a technical paper in which some results are interesting but the paper submitted needs a serious improvement to be publishable. English language (specially many technical terms are not appropriate) must be improved. The paper should clearly read by all co-authors before submitting to avoid some missing information. References should be completed with international literature..
General comments are given as follows:
Title:
“perimeter pressure” is not the adequate term. See in all the text.
Abstract:
Avoid to use symbol as AE, give only it in the full text.
Keywords:
“perimeter pressure” is not the adequate term. “coal sample” should be added.
Introduction:
Page 1
Lines 13-15: Write correctly punctuation and respect a space before all brackets.
Lines 13-15 and page 2 lines 1-2: redundant sentences, please write correctly in one sentence.
Page 2
Lines 3,6,7,9,11,17,21, 24,26…and so and: write only the name of the author’s paper cited.
Line 3: “instanton”?
Line 5: It is not “Bing”!
Line 19: it is not et al but Guo and Yang.
Line 20: add the reference after the name of author cited.
Line 34: put symbol after “acoustic emission in italics or brackets.
Coal sample preparation and experiments
Coal sample preparation
Line 3: “were measured”: what is it measured”? “measured” or “applied”?
Line 4: “counted”? inadequate term or unclear term.
Line 5: precise the diameter and height.
Line 6: explain the process to get sample and how control the state of sample after coring?
Page 3
Figure 1: why 80 samples?
Determination of initial damage to coal samples
Line 3: why 48 samples (give before experimental program.
Figure 2: this figure could be gathered with figure 1.
Page 4
Triaxial compressive strength determination
Lines 1-5: need to be clarified.
Figure 3: what is the usefulness of a such unreadable figure? A scheme will be more satisfying.
Table 2: explain clearly what is a group and how many samples in each group and for what type of test (experimental program?).
Preparation of damaged coal samples
Line 1: write correctly “Martini et al believed (reference)….”.
Line 2: suppress the initials of each reference in the text.
Line 4: is it a dummy or a control test?
Page 5
Figure 4 must be improved. Is it n or N? What is “enclosure pressure”? Define σ1, σ2, σ3 ?
Critical damage coal sample determination
Line 4: confuse sentence with a bracket?
Line 6: what means “-1” of the reference? Add a “.” Before “5MPa-60%-1” and also “reference 5MPa…’
Line 8: “below” change giving the figure number.
Lines 9-15: totally unclear.
Lines 21-23: in a given experimental program (before) all references and types of test should be gathered. Here authors say why they do tests only on these selection of sample (it is too late).
Page 6
Figure 5 is not very useful for readers!
Line 9: incomprehensible sentence?
Uniaxial loading of critically damaged coal samples
Uniaxial reloading experiments on critically damaged coal samples
Line 4: a scheme of the instrumentation will be useful for readers.
Page 7
Figure 6 is unclear, see above remark.
Stress analysis of critically damaged coal samples
After figure 7:
Line5: is it right for the values given regarding the figure 7?
Line 6: “the strain decreased…”: is it right with the figure 7?
Lines 8-11: unclear writing.
Page 8
Line 1 and after for all equations: write correctly the parameters used in equations: as it is simple, write directly in the text.
Acoustic emission signal analysis
Lines 3-4: it is not the paper that uses acoustic emission!
Line 13: a problem is detected about a source not found!
Equation 2: write correctly this equation and use the international symbol.
Line 18: write correctly “where….”. Is it referenced as earthquakes” but in this study the term used is not adequate.
Line 25: It is Rao and Lakshmi?
Equation 3: write correctly this equation and use the international symbol.
Line 27: write correctly “where….”.
Line 30: It is “Dong and Zhang”….
Line 34: unclear sentence.
Equation 4: write correctly this equation and use the international symbol.
Line 36: write correctly “where….”.
Page 9
Equation 5: write correctly this equation and use the international symbol.
Line 1: write correctly “where….”.
Figure 8: what is “Pcs”? write “time/s”.
After figure 8, lines 2-3: use the same font for I, II, III and IV.
Page 10
Figure 9: what is “Pcs”?
Fractal characteristics
Page 11
Line 1: rewrite correctly the references used or the sentence.
Figure 10: not useful.
Figure 11: not useful also and the paper must be written in English.
Equation 7: write correctly this equation and use the international symbol.
Line 9: write correctly “where….”.
Lines 9-10: notations used are not those written in equation 7.
Page 12
Figure 12: check the writing in the figure ‘legend and also in axes’ legend.
Line 7: what figures in the table?
Line 11: how the percentages are calculated?
The law of energy evolution
Why authors use the term of “law” in the section title?
Line 3: “outside world” is not adequate term.
Page 13
Equations 9 and 10 and E parameter is not written exactly as in equations? Define here “principal stress”?
Line 9: equation 8 is missing.
Figure 14: write axes ’legend in capital or small letters. Write correctly”. Usually a strain has not unit!
Page 14
After figure 15: is it “standardized” or “normalized”? Define all the terms used in legends in the text.
Page 15
Conclusion:
Authors gather results reported in the paper without highlighting the innovative parts.
References:
On the 25 references cited only 4 are coming outside the authors country demonstrating that the literature is not international and a lack of literature is evident.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageImprovement is evident for the English language.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled " Uniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different confining pressure unloading spans ". Those comments were valuable and very helpful. We have read these comments carefully and have made revisions. In accordance with the instructions provided to us based on your letter, we have uploaded a file of the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are in red font for additions and in blue font for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Uniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different perimeter pressure unloading spans”, that was submitted to journal “appl. sci.” of MDPI, studies the critical damage range of coal samples. To achieve this ΑΕ data and fractal, energy theory are applied and used. The manuscript is interesting and fits well within the aim of the appl. sci.
Some minor and major changes must be conducted in order to improve the quality of the manuscript. My comments are the following:
1. Keywords: It would be better to use the term triaxial compressive strength instead of perimeter pressure.
2. In the introduction AE must be further discussed provided that major findings in this work are related to the AE parameters analyses. Furthermore critical damage must be discussed providing relevant literature. Indicatively the following references are the following:
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6020048,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13245608,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-022-00518-8,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2022.103690,
DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2021.1935940
https://doi.org/10.3390/ app12083918
https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511581
Another weakness is that many references correspond to literature that is not in English, a fact that makes the reading difficult. It is suggested to the authors to avoid such references provided that Appl. Sci., is published in English.
3. The authors at the conclusions should clarify the impact of their work and the open questions that it answers.
4. The following information must be added in the experimental setup section:
a) Clearly stress the model and vendor of the used sensors
b) The corresponding working bandwidth of the sensors
c) Provide the used AE sensors resonant frequency.
d) The way data synchronization is achieved between the mechanical load recording and the corresponding AE.
4. It would be better to use the well-established acoustic emission hit instead of acoustic emission impact.
5. In paragraph 4.3 there are some minor and major issues the authors should address, clarify and correct.
Specifically:
a) Reference Jiang et al., 2019, is not listed in the reference list. I suggest to be replaced with the: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:3(280)
b) Improve the formatting of the Equations. It is suggested regarding the equations to use log instead of lg.
c) In reference Sagasta et al., 2018, the following should be added: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.05.003. The same reference can replace the (Utsu, 1965).
d) I have significant considerations regarding the method authors use to calculate the b-value. They refer to (Dong et al., 2020), in order to support that this way there is an advantage of low and practically constant errors. I could not find this reference that is probably written in another language. Beyond this in a recent work of the same authors [https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030451], they use the classic way G-R (Eq. 3). Ι am concerned about the relatively low values of the b-value (b<1). More specifically, during the early loading stages I would expect that b>1, especially for the “no damage” group.
I suggest the use of the GR method (Εq.3) or alternatively of the Improved b-value, see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24110936 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.049.
6. Regarding the presentation of the results in Figure 8 I have the following comments:
a) For the calculation of the b-values the number of the used AE hits the authors used must be clarified and what is the sliding window they choose. How they achieve the time correspondence of the b-values? It is my opinion that they should use the mean value of the times the AE hit incidents of the window have. If this is the time the authors used this should be reported clearly.
b) The term “number of impacts” must be changed as “hits per sec” in the case each bar of the histogram corresponds to the number of hits recorded during each second. This is not clear in the figures. Authors should clearly describe what the secondary axis presents and it is titled as /103 Pcs.
c) In figure 8(a) and during the period from 850 sec until 1000 sec a silence is recorded regarding the AE hits. During this period how the b=0.7 was calculated? The same comment applies for figure 8(c).
d) In figure 9 a crosscheck must be performed regarding the first occurrence time of b value. Based on figure 8 there are deviations.
e) Finally, what is criterion the authors set the boundaries of the four stages. They must clearly describe this in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate English changes required
Author Response
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled " Uniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different confining pressure unloading spans ". Those comments were valuable and very helpful. We have read these comments carefully and have made revisions. In accordance with the instructions provided to us based on your letter, we have uploaded a file of the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are in red font for additions and in blue font for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents experimental results of laboratory tests addressed to investigate damage characteristics of the lower critical damage coal samples under different perimeter pressure unloading spans.
It is opinion of the Reviewer that the paper is well structured and it may be considered for the publication. However, the following the comments should be considered before the publication.
Point 1
To date, there are several works in literature addressed to determine stress-strain properties of material under triaxial confinement state. Among the other, authors may refer to the following works, whose approach may be generalized for any kind of materials, having both low and high compressive strength:
· D'Amato, M., Braga, F., Gigliotti, R., Kunnath, S., Laterza, M., 2012. A numerical general-purpose confinement model for non-linear analysis of R/C members. Computers and Structures, 102-103, pp. 64-75.
· Baduge, Shanaka Kristombu, Priyan Mendis, and Tuan Ngo. "Stress-strain relationship for very-high strength concrete (> 100 MPa) confined by lateral reinforcement." Engineering Structures177 (2018): 795-808.
Point 2
In order to boost the paper within the scientific literature, Authors are invite to better clarify what’s the novelty of the paper presented.
Point 3
Line 219. Reviewer does not understand the statement reported in this paper part. Please, better clarify this part.
Point 4
Check the equations 2, 4, 5 and 7. What does the term ‘lg’ mean?
Point 5
Figure 9 should be better commented in the paper.
Point 6
Conclusion should be reviewed, reporting only the main outcomes of the work presented.
Point 7
Check line 241
Author Response
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled " Uniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different confining pressure unloading spans ". Those comments were valuable and very helpful. We have read these comments carefully and have made revisions. In accordance with the instructions provided to us based on your letter, we have uploaded a file of the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are in red font for additions and in blue font for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed all the comments.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Respose to the Review Comments
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Uniaxial reloading damage characterization of severely damaged coal samples under different constraint pressure unloading spans". These comments were valuable and helpful to us. We have read them carefully and have made revisions.We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by [a native English speaker]/[a professional language editing service] to improve the grammar and readability.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
changes have been made and the paper sonuds good.
I have just some minor points:
Please change Mpa whit MPa along the text.
Please also note that when referring to triaxial tests you may refer to axial stress instead of axial pressure.
Moreover, often along the text sentences like "confining pressure unloading" are present..but theri meaning is unknown. What is the confining pressure unloading? Please refer to international literture (i.e Jaeger et al., 2007) for standard nomenclature
When introducing cyclic loading tests please note that such kind of tests have been also used to explain mechanical properties of sulfate hydrates (Grindrod et al, 2010 JGR) and by many other authors.
Please consider that B-value may also depend on the location of the events (see Collettini et al., 2022 Nature Communication). I think that a little discussion on this topic must be done.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some sentences are hard to read. Please consider a review from a native English speaker.
Author Response
Respose to the Review Comments
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Uniaxial reloading damage characterization of severely damaged coal samples under different constraint pressure unloading spans". These comments were valuable and helpful to us. We have read them carefully and have made revisions. Following the instructions in your letter, we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are shown in red font for additions and in blue font and strikethrough for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Q1: Please change Mpa whit MPa along the text.
Response: MPa was changed to MPa as suggested by the reviewer, and the units were checked and revised throughout the text.
Q2: Please also note that when referring to triaxial tests you may refer to axial stress instead of axial pressure.
Response: The axial stress has been rewritten as axial pressure in the corresponding section as requested by the reviewer.
Q3: Moreover, often along the text sentences like "confining pressure unloading" are present..but theri meaning is unknown. What is the confining pressure unloading? Please refer to international literture (i.e Jaeger et al., 2007) for standard nomenclature
Response: Due to missing reference information provided by the reviewer, we found only one article by C. Collettini published in Nature Communications in 2007
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33373-y
The term "confining pressure unloading" is incomplete in this article; it is fully expressed as "confining pressure unloading span". “confining pressure unloading span” refers to setting a target axial pressure and confining pressure in a triaxial loading test, and unloading the confining pressure to varying degrees after the target value is reached.
Q4: When introducing cyclic loading tests please note that such kind of tests have been also used to explain mechanical properties of sulfate hydrates (Grindrod et al, 2010 JGR) and by many other authors.
Response: We read the references recommended by the reviewers in detail and found that the article had some relevance to our study and decided to include it in the cited literature.
Q5: Please consider that B-value may also depend on the location of the events (see Collettini et al., 2022 Nature Communication). I think that a little discussion on this topic must be done.
Response: The purpose of analyzing the acoustic emission b worth in this study is to reflect the secondary loading crack expansion of the damaged coal samples, so there is no need to specify the location where the acoustic emission signals appear. Determining the location of acoustic emission signal generation during uniaxial loading of rock requires detection by at least four acoustic emission probes, whereas in this experiment only two acoustic emission probes were used for detection, and the location of acoustic emission signal generation could not be determined. We will pay attention to the issues raised by the reviewers in future studies.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUniaxial reloading damage characteristics of critically damaged coal samples at different confining pressure unloading spans – Revised version
by Wang P. et al.
Authors have addressed the main corrections but some minor corrections are due. English language must be checked before publication. References would have been completed with international literature.
General comments are given as follows:
Keywords:
“triaxial compressive strength” is sufficient.
Introduction:
Page 1
Line 13: what means “e;g;” before each [number]? (see guidelines of the journal).
Page 2
Lines 1, 3, 9, 11, 18, 20…and so and: write only the name of the author’s paper and do not cite initials (see guidelines of the journal). It is Name et al., not e.g., see in all the text.
Page 5
Triaxial compressive strength determination
Lines 3-5: write correctly: MPa, kN.
Figure 3: what is the usefulness of this figure? Be careful the following figure is 3 or 4?
Preparation of damaged coal samples
Line 1: write correctly “Martini et al [24] believed ….”.
Lines 1-2: suppress the initials of each reference in the text. (see guidelines of the journal).
Page 6
Figure 4 or 3? must be improved. Check all writing on the figures and also check the spaces between words.
Critical damage coal sample determination
Line 4: suppress the brackets and write “where….”.
Page 9
Figure 6 is suppressed or not?
Page 10
Acoustic emission signal analysis
Line 1 after equation 1: write correctly “where….”.
Page 11
Line 1: write correctly “where….”.
After equation 3: write correctly “where….”.
After equation 4,
write correctly “where….”.
Page 12
After figure 8, lines 2-3: use the same font as the text for I, II, III and IV.
Page 14
Fractal characteristics
Line 8: rewrite correctly the references of the curves.
Figures 10 and 11 are suppressed.
Page 16
Line 9: what figures in the table?
Page 19
Replace the figure legend before the text.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language must be checked before publication.
Author Response
Respose to the Review Comments
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Uniaxial reloading damage characterization of severely damaged coal samples under different constraint pressure unloading spans". These comments were valuable and helpful to us. We have read them carefully and have made revisions. Following the instructions in your letter, we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are shown in red font for additions and in blue font and strikethrough for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Q1: Keywords:“triaxial compressive strength” is sufficient.
Response:
Based on the reviewer's suggestion, the keyword "term triaxial compressive strength" was rewritten as "triaxial compressive strength".
Q2: Introduction: Page 1 Line 13: what means “e;g;” before each [number]? (see guidelines of the journal).
Response: Change the reference citation format in the text from having -e.g, [1] or [1,2] or [1-3] to author [1] or [1,2] or [1-3] according to the description in the guidance document.
Q3: Introduction: Page 2 Lines 1, 3, 9, 11, 18, 20…and so and: write only the name of the author’s paper and do not cite initials (see guidelines of the journal). It is Name et al., not e.g., see in all the text.
Response: Change the reference citation format in the text from having -e.g, [1] or [1,2] or [1-3] to author [1] or [1,2] or [1-3] according to the description in the guidance document.
Q4: Triaxial compressive strength determination Lines 3-5: write correctly: MPa, kN.
Response: MPa and KN were changed to MPa and kN as suggested by the reviewer, and the units were checked and revised throughout the text.
Q5: Triaxial compressive strength determination Figure 3: what is the usefulness of this figure? Be careful the following figure is 3 or 4?
Response: Since Figure 3 needs to be removed from the original text, Figure 4 is actually Figure 3 here. The full-text images were checked and adjusted as required and rewritten in the corresponding places in the text.
Q6: Preparation of damaged coal samples Line 1: write correctly “Martini et al [24] believed ….”.
Response: Rewrite the sentence as suggested by the reviewer as follows:
Martini et al [24] believed that rock damage will occur after rock loads are loaded to 40% of their peak strength.
Q7 Preparation of damaged coal samples Lines 1-2: suppress the initials of each reference in the text. (see guidelines of the journal).
Response: Rewrite the sentence as suggested by the reviewer as follows:
Tao et al [25] found that when rocks under 3D stress state experience unloading, the process is dominated by strain energy density (SED) rate.
Q8 Preparation of damaged coal samples Page 6 Figure 4 or 3? must be improved. Check all writing on the figures and also check the spaces between words.
Response: Since Figure 3 needs to be removed from the original text, Figure 4 is actually Figure 3 here. The full-text images were checked and adjusted as required and rewritten in the corresponding places in the text.
Q9 Critical damage coal sample determination Line 4: suppress the brackets and write “where….”.
Response: At the suggestion of the reviewer, change the form of the annotation to the figure 4 icon from () to "where..."
Q10 Critical damage coal sample determination Page 9 Figure 6 is suppressed or not?
Response: Figure 6 in the original article has been removed at the suggestion of the reviewer. The full-text images were checked and adjusted as required and rewritten in the corresponding places in the text.
Q11 Acoustic emission signal analysis Page 10 Line 1 after equation 1: write correctly “where….”.
Response: Format the part of the body formula in which the symbolic notes appear according to the writing requirements (write "where" in top space).
Q12 Acoustic emission signal analysis Page 11 Line 1: write correctly “where….”.
Response: Format the part of the body formula in which the symbolic notes appear according to the writing requirements (write "where" in top space).
Q13 Acoustic emission signal analysis Page 11 After equation 3: write correctly “where….”.
Response: Format the part of the body formula in which the symbolic notes appear according to the writing requirements (write "where" in top space).
Q14 Acoustic emission signal analysis Page 11 After equation 4,write correctly “where….”.
Response: Format the part of the body formula in which the symbolic notes appear according to the writing requirements (write "where" in top space).
Q15 Acoustic emission signal analysis Page 12 After figure 8, lines 2-3: use the same font as the text for I, II, III and IV.
Response: Change the text â… , â…¡, â…¢ and â…£ from an equilateral font to a new Roman font consistent with Figure 6
Q16 Fractal characteristics Page 14 Line 8: rewrite correctly the references of the curves.
Response: Rewrite lg() as log10() in accordance with international writing norms
log10(MLeq/M) and LG (Leq ) log10(Leq) fitting curves and calculating the fractal dimension to further analyze the fragmentation trend of the coal samples.
Q17 Fractal characteristics Page 14 Figures 10 and 11 are suppressed.
Response: Figure 10 and 11 in the original article has been removed at the suggestion of the reviewer. The full-text images were checked and adjusted as required and rewritten in the corresponding places in the text.
Q28 Fractal characteristics Page 16 Line 9: what figures in the table?
Response: Rephrase the original text as follows:
According to the change in the value of the fractal dimension D in Table 3.Based on D in Table 3 and Figure 12,From Table 3 and Figure 12, it can be seen that there are large dif-ferences in the fractal characteristics of coal samples under different groups.
Q19 Fractal characteristics Page 19 Replace the figure legend before the text.
Response: Rephrase the original text as follows:
Normalized axial strain as a percentage of dissipated energy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised submission was carefully considered.
The authors have not properly addressed some critical comments of the review. Their responses are not convincing. Moreover, some of the comments were not addressed at all. In addition, the method for calculating the temporal evolution of the b-values and the way it is presented are problematic. I regret to suggest rejection of the manuscript
Author Response
Respose to the Review Comments
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Uniaxial reloading damage characterization of severely damaged coal samples under different constraint pressure unloading spans". These comments were valuable and helpful to us. We have read them carefully and have made revisions. There may be some elements in which there are differences in our understanding, for which I will apologize. Finally, we would like to thank you again for your review and guidance. Your suggestions have been extremely helpful in improving the quality of our paper. If there are any other questions or need for further discussion, we always welcome your feedback and we will reply and provide solutions as soon as possible.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper has been revised according to the comments provided. It is a very interesting paper.
Check the references added.
The current reference should be corrected in:
D’Amato, M.; Braga, F.; Gigliotti, R.; Kunnath, S.; Laterza, M. A numerical general-purpose confinement model for non-linear analysis of R/C members. 2012, 102, 64-75.
Author Response
Respose to the Review Comments
Dear Editors and Dear Reviewers
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers' comments on our manuscript entitled "Uniaxial reloading damage characterization of severely damaged coal samples under different constraint pressure unloading spans". These comments were valuable and helpful to us. We have read them carefully and have made revisions. Following the instructions in your letter, we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Changes in the main text are shown in red font for additions and in blue font and strikethrough for deletions. Responses to reviewers' comments are highlighted in red, as shown below.
Thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript, we greatly appreciate your time and consideration and regard.
Sincerely
Q1: Check the references added.
Response: Adjust the full reference formatting as follows:
- Huang, D.; Li, Y. J. I. J. o. R. M.; Sciences, M., Conversion of strain energy in triaxial unloading tests on marble. 2014, 66, 160-168.
- D’Amato, M.; Braga, F.; Gigliotti, R.; Kunnath, S.; Laterza, M. J. C.; structures, A numerical general-purpose confinement model for non-linear analysis of R/C members. 2012, 102, 64-75.
- Baduge, S. K.; Mendis, P.; Ngo, T. J. E. S., Stress-strain relationship for very-high strength concrete (> 100 MPa) confined by lateral reinforcement. 2018, 177, 795-808.
- Dai, B.; Zhao, G.; Konietzky, H.; Wasantha, P. J. K. J. o. C. E., Experimental and numerical study on the damage evolution behaviour of granitic rock during loading and unloading. 2018, 22, 3278-3291.
- Qiu, S.-L.; Feng, X.-T.; Xiao, J.-Q.; Zhang, C.-Q. J. R. M.; Engineering, R., An experimental study on the pre-peak unloading damage evolution of marble. 2014, 47, 401-419.
- Huang, X.; Liu, Q.; Liu, B.; Liu, X.; Pan, Y.; Liu, J. J. I. J. o. C. E., Experimental study on the dilatancy and fracturing behavior of soft rock under unloading conditions. 2017, 15, 921-948.
- Li, G.; Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Yang, X.; Wang, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, S. J. S. R., Creep damage model of rock with varying-parameter under the step loading and unloading conditions. 2021, 11 (1), 24057.
- Hong, L.; Zhou, Z.-l.; Yin, T.-b.; Liao, G.-y.; Ye, Z.-y. J. J. o. C. S. U. o. T., Energy consumption in rock fragmentation at intermediate strain rate. 2009, 16 (4), 677-682.
- Friedrich, L. F.; Tanzi, B. N. R.; Colpo, A. B.; Sobczyk, M.; Lacidogna, G.; Niccolini, G.; Iturrioz, I. J. A. S., Analysis of acoustic emission activity during progressive failure in heterogeneous materials: Experimental and numerical investigation. 2022, 12 (8), 3918.
- Rodríguez, P.; Celestino, T. B. J. E. F. M., Application of acoustic emission monitoring and signal analysis to the qualitative and quantitative characterization of the fracturing process in rocks. 2019, 210, 54-69.
- Liu, X.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Gong, F.; Du, K. J. I. J. o. R. M.; Sciences, M., Experimental study on the effect of strain rate on rock acoustic emission characteristics. 2020, 133, 104420.
- Moradian, Z.; Einstein, H. H.; Ballivy, G. J. R. M.; Engineering, R., Detection of cracking levels in brittle rocks by parametric analysis of the acoustic emission signals. 2016, 49, 785-800.
- Meng, Q.; Zhang, M.; Han, L.; Pu, H.; Nie, T. J. R. M.; Engineering, R., Effects of acoustic emission and energy evolution of rock specimens under the uniaxial cyclic loading and unloading compression. 2016, 49, 3873-3886.
- Zong, Y.; Han, L.; Wei, J.; Wen, S. J. I. J. o. M. S.; Technology, Mechanical and damage evolution properties of sandstone under triaxial compression. 2016, 26 (4), 601-607.
- Chen, X.; Feng, L.; Wang, X.; Chen, C.; Diao, H. J. I. J. o. P. E., Acoustic emission characteristics of fatigue failure process of self-compacting rubberized concrete pavement slabs. 2022, 23 (12), 4149-4159.
- Niccolini, G.; Potirakis, S. M.; Lacidogna, G.; Borla, O. J. M., Criticality hidden in acoustic emissions and in changing electrical resistance during fracture of rocks and cement-based materials. 2020, 13 (24), 5608.
- Nazaripoor, H.; Ashrafizadeh, H.; Schultz, R.; Runka, J.; Mertiny, P. J. J. o. C. S., Acoustic emission damage detection during three-point bend testing of short glass fiber reinforced composite panels: Integrity assessment. 2022, 6 (2), 48.
- Kong, X.; Zhan, M.; Cai, Y.; Ji, P.; He, D.; Zhao, T.; Hu, J.; Lin, X. J. S., Precursor Signal Identification and Acoustic Emission Characteristics of Coal Fracture Process Subjected to Uniaxial Loading. 2023, 15 (15), 11581.
- Sagasta, F.; Zitto, M. E.; Piotrkowski, R.; Benavent-Climent, A.; Suarez, E.; Gallego, A. J. M. S.; Processing, S., Acoustic emission energy b-value for local damage evaluation in reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic loadings. 2018, 102, 262-277.
- Abdul Kudus, S.; Muhamad Bunnori, N.; Mustaffa, N. K.; Jamadin, A. J. I. J. o. C. S.; Materials, Investigation on acoustic emission parameters due to fatigue damage of concrete beams with variable notched depth. 2022, 16 (1), 29.
- Guo, X.; Zhao, Z.; Gao, X.; Wu, X.; Ma, N. J. I. J. o. M. S.; Technology, Analytical solutions for characteristic radii of circular roadway surrounding rock plastic zone and their application. 2019, 29 (2), 263-272.
- Zuo, J.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y. J. I. J. o. C. S.; Technology, Macro/meso failure behavior of surrounding rock in deep roadway and its control technology. 2019, 6, 301-319.
- Aydin, A. J. T. I. S. M. f. R. C., Testing; Monitoring:, The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 2007-2014. 2015, 2007-2014.
- Martini, C.; Read, R.; Martino, J. J. I. J. o. R. M.; Sciences, M., Observations of brittle failure around a circular test tunnel. 1997, 34 (7), 1065-1073.
- Tao, M.; Li, X.; Li, D. J. T.; Mechanics, A. F., Rock failure induced by dynamic unloading under 3D stress state. 2013, 65, 47-54.
- Zhang, K.; Zhang, S.; Ren, J.; Wang, M.; Jing, S.; Zhang, W. J. S.; Vibration, Study on Characteristics of Acoustic Emission b Value of Coal Rock with Outburst-Proneness under Coupled Static and Dynamic Loads. 2023, 2023.
- Colombo, I. S.; Main, I.; Forde, M. J. J. o. m. i. c. e., Assessing damage of reinforced concrete beam using “b-value” analysis of acoustic emission signals. 2003, 15 (3), 280-286.
- Sagar, R. V.; Prasad, B. R.; Kumar, S. S. J. C.; Research, C., An experimental study on cracking evolution in concrete and cement mortar by the b-value analysis of acoustic emission technique. 2012, 42 (8), 1094-1104.
- Rao, M.; Lakshmi, K. P. J. C. s., Analysis of b-value and improved b-value of acoustic emissions accompanying rock fracture. 2005, 1577-1582.
- Shi, Y.; Bolt, B. A. J. B. o. t. S. S. o. A., The standard error of the magnitude-frequency b value. 1982, 72 (5), 1677-1687.
