Optimization Study of Water Interval Charge Structure Based on the Evaluation of Rock Damage Effect in Smooth Blasting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper discusses the importance of optimizing the water interval charging structure in tunnel smooth blasting to enhance effectiveness and reduce explosive consumption. See my comments in the attachments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores optimizing water interval charging structures in tunnel smooth blasting. Using a new evaluation method, the research identifies optimal charge configurations through numerical modeling and field tests. Findings suggest a specific water medium length for effective rock fragmentation while avoiding under-excavation. The preferred charge structure achieves superior rock-breaking effects, offering practical guidance for smooth blasting optimization.
Optimizing the water interval charging structure in tunnel smooth blasting is crucial for enhancing blasting effectiveness, minimizing explosive consumption, and ensuring safe and efficient tunnel construction.
ABSTRACT
Point 1. In the Abstract you indicate that “This study can provide theoretical guidance for optimizing the charge structure in smooth blasting”, but there are nothing about such possibilities in the paper.
INTRODUCTION
Point 1. [Error! Reference source not found.]. - Reference source is missing.
Point 2. Lines 74-82. Indicate not what is the paper about but indicate what you strive to di in this research. In your research, it's essential to clearly articulate the objectives and aims of optimizing the water interval charging structure in tunnel smooth blasting, emphasizing the pursuit of improved blasting effectiveness, reduced explosive consumption, and ensuring safe and efficient tunnel construction.
Point 3. Lines 83-89. Delete this paragraph. It is not necessary.
Point 4. The Introduction section offers a thorough review of the literature, predominantly centered on research conducted in China. However, there is a notable deficiency in the analysis of studies from outside China, which requires substantial enhancement to ensure a more balanced perspective.
Point 5. What about the varying of cross-sectional shapes during the evaluation of rock damage effect? Please consider mentioned below research in your study as it can affect further research direction. Ishchenko, O., Konoval, V., & Ishchenko, K. (2022). Physical and simulation modelling of solid media fracturing by means of explosive charges of different cross-sectional shapes. Min. Miner. Depos. 16, 122-131. Doi:10.33271/mining16.04.122
Point 6. Line 71. … “establish a new theoretical basis” Why not improve existing one?
ESTABLISHMENT OF A METHOD FOR EVALUATING ROCK DAMAGE EFFECTS
Point 1. In your research you have operate such terms as “classical strength theory” “dynamic compressive strength”, “dynamic tensile strength”, “equivalent yield strength”, etc. What about uniaxial compressive strength? Describe this point in detail. Please refer to the literature DOI:10.33271/mining17.01.04 , DOI: 10.1007/s11440-023-01806-7 etc.
Point 2. Section 2.1.2. What statistical methods are being employed to enhance crack analysis accuracy, specifically aiming to reflect the evolution law and distribution characteristics of damage variables, thereby providing reliable support for rock damage analysis?
NUMERICAL MODELS AND PARAMETER SELECTION
Point 1. Why LS-DYNA program was used? Explanation is necessary.
Point 1. How boundary conditions were implemented to receive reliable results?
EVALUATION OF DAMAGE EFFECTS AND OPTIMISATION OF CHARGE STRUCTURE
Point 1. This section is clear but I would like to suggest title it as Results and Discussion as per IMRaD structure.
Point 2. Figure 9. Rock damage range around the blast hole at 0.6ms. (a) Rock damage range of CS#1. (b) 357 Rock damage range of CS#2. (c) Rock damage range of CS#3. You are asked to change title of the Figure 9. I propose as follows: Figure 9. Rock damage range around the blast hole at 0.6ms: (a) – CS#1; (b) – CS#2; (c) – CS#3.
GENERAL OPINION
Overall, the article presents a favorable impression, and upon addressing the noted comments and considering the provided recommendations, it appears suitable for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsExcellent revisions.
My congratulations.
