Study on the Mechanical Properties and Degradation Mechanisms of Damaged Rock Under the Influence of Liquid Saturation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript does not specify the oil: water volume ratio or specimen immersion depths, which are crucial for reproducibility and understanding fluid interactions.

2. There are no pure‐water or pure‐oil control groups, making it impossible to distinguish water‐driven from oil‐driven degradation mechanisms.

3. Table 1 shows an implausible spike in K content at 8 h (19.9 %), likely due to reporting errors; the authors should re‐examine and correct these values.

4. SEM observations are purely qualitative; a simple image‐analysis metric (e.g., porosity fraction) would strengthen claims about microstructural deterioration.

5. The basis for RA–AF thresholds (e.g., K = 30) and preprocessing steps is not described, which undermines confidence in the crack-mode classification.

6. The elastic modulus (“E”) and numerical integration method for energy calculations are not defined, and energy plots lack units, hindering reproducibility.

7.  Only single specimens per soak time appear to be tested; at least three replicates with error bars are needed to demonstrate result consistency.

8. Many figures are low‐resolution with small fonts; provide higher‐resolution images and enlarge axis labels for legibility.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several grammatical issues and inconsistent hyphenation should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the degradation mechanisms of initially damaged rock under oil-water infiltration conditions. Using uniaxial compression tests, digital image correlation (DIC), acoustic emission (AE) monitoring, SEM-EDS, and other techniques, the authors explore how oil-water soaking time affects mechanical properties, crack development, and energy evolution. I suggest the follow improvements:

1-Introduction Lacks Precise Focus

The introduction, while thorough, spends considerable space on general context (abandoned mines, mine repurposing) and does not directly set up the research gap until much later. The connection between this background and the specific issue of oil-water infiltration on pre-damaged rock is not clearly established early. The final paragraph of the introduction only briefly mentions this gap, without a clear problem statement or research question.

2- Limited Literature Context for Oil-Water Infiltration

The introduction lacks references to oil-water interactions with rocks in petroleum engineering or subsurface storage contexts.

More detail on why oil-water infiltration differs from water-only or oil-only effects (e.g., differences in wettability, chemical interactions) would strengthen relevance.

 3-No Broader Implications Highlighted

The introduction could mention that these findings are not just for oil storage, but also relevant to geological hydrogen or CO₂ storage integrity, expanding the impact of the study.

Rewrite the Introduction:

Shorten the general context.

Expand on the oil-water infiltration context: how it chemically/physically interacts with pre-damaged rock.

Clearly state the research question at the end of the introduction, e.g., “How does oil-water infiltration combined with initial mechanical damage alter the mechanical behavior and microstructure of rock in abandoned mine storage spaces?”

how your works can be applied in real life? what are the limitations?

Some figures are not clear such as figure 5 please fix them.

 Enhance the Conclusions:

I recommend major revisions before acceptance. The paper’s technical work is strong, but the introduction’s relevance and the broader framing need to be improved to better highlight novelty and real-world significance.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been addressed properly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript looks good for publishing now.

 

Thank you