Silicone Replication Technology Reveals HPWJ Hole Formation Mechanisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a well-defined research question, but it currently does not align with the publication standards of Applied Sciences. Significant improvements are needed in both content development and presentation. Authors are encouraged to review the annotated PDF, which contains detailed line-by-line suggestions to support the revision process.

 

 

1 - The authors are encouraged to choose a more concise and engaging title that clearly reflects the core themes of the manuscript while attracting reader interest. Removing parentheses from the title is also suggested, as they can disrupt readability and weaken the overall impact. A clear and well-formulated title can improve the article’s visibility and appeal across diverse research communities.

 

2 - The abstract would be stronger if it gave more attention to the practical use and wider significance of the research. Emphasizing how the findings apply to real-world scenarios would help increase the work’s relevance and overall impact.

 

3 - Some of the listed keywords read more like full phrases than focused terms. The authors are encouraged to revise them into shorter, more precise entries, as keywords are essential for proper indexing and improving the visibility of the article in academic databases.

 

4 - The introduction presents a relevant and technically significant research topic, aiming to improve the characterization of water jet-induced hole formation in deep coal seams through silicone replication. While the motivation is well stated and the contextual background is sufficiently covered with references, the articulation of the knowledge gap and the positioning of the contribution within the existing literature could be more explicitly developed. The writing would also benefit from greater clarity and conciseness to improve accessibility to a broader scientific audience.

 

5 - from row 35 to row 38, where authors state "[...] High-pressure water jet pressure relief and permeability enhancement technology has become one of the primary methods for gas control in deep coal seams due to its high efficiency in breaking coal and significant pressure relief effects [...]" Authors should also cite works related to subsurface modelling, which has become a fundamental tool for methods of controlling the extraction of materials and resources. Authors should cite here the following work:

-Tomassi, A., de Franco, R. and Trippetta, F., 2025. High-resolution synthetic seismic modelling: Elucidating facies heterogeneity in carbonate ramp systems. Petroleum Geoscience, 31(1), pp.petgeo2024-047.

 

 

6 - Row 39. Please pay attention to punctuation and the use of capital letters to ensure consistency and adherence to academic writing conventions.

 

7 - The section "2. High-pressure Water Jet Punching Experiment" provides a detailed overview of the experimental setup and procedures used to simulate high-pressure water jet punching in coal seams. While the technical description is generally informative, the rationale behind specific parameter selections is not always clearly explained. Clarifying how these parameters relate to real-world field conditions and elaborating on any calibration or validation efforts would strengthen the experimental credibility and enhance the reproducibility of the study.

 

8 - I recommend that the authors improve the visual quality of Figure 1 by, for example, enarging it, as enhancing its resolution and clarity would make the data easier to interpret and increase the overall readability and professionalism of the manuscript.

 

9 - I also recommend that the caption of Figure 1 be made more explicit and descriptive. It should clearly explain what is being shown and highlight the key information the authors intend to convey, so that the figure can be better understood without needing to refer extensively to the main text.

 

10 - Also figure 2 should be enlarged

 

11 - The section "3. Reconstruction of Jet Hole Internal Morphology" effectively outlines the use of 3D laser scanning to reconstruct the internal morphology of jet holes, offering valuable visual and quantitative insights. However, the explanation could benefit from a clearer articulation of how the morphological data supports the study’s broader objectives. Clarifying the connection between these reconstructions and the implications for gas extraction efficiency or reservoir behavior would improve the scientific relevance of the analysis.

 

12 - Also figure 3 should be enlarged

 

13 - The final section summarizes the core aspects of the study but would benefit from a clearer focus on the practical relevance and broader implications of the findings. This part of the paper should more directly highlight the key outcomes and how they respond to the original research questions. Including a brief reflection on the study’s limitations and outlining possible avenues for future investigation would add important context. Enhancing these aspects would improve both the clarity and the overall impact of the conclusion.

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 Authors

Article “Research on Hole Formation Law of High-Pressure Water Jet Based on Silicone Replication Technology“ investigates the dynamic evolution of hole morphology formed by high-pressure water jet under multi-field coupling conditions (mechanical properties, pressure, time), using an innovative silicone replication technique. While the experimental approach is interesting and potentially useful for mining applications, the paper exhibits several methodological, stylistic, and scientific weaknesses that should be addressed before publication. Suggestions for improving the quality of the paper are given below:

 

• Overall paper structure: the authors are advised to reorganize the manuscript in accordance with international standards for scientific writing. The paper does not follow the commonly accepted structure of a scientific article, which typically includes the following sections: Introduction-Materials and Methods-Results & Discussion-Conclusion-References. Instead, the paper uses non-standard headings such as: “High-pressure Water Jet Punching Experiment”; “Reconstruction of Jet Hole Internal Morphology”; “Figures, Tables and Schemes” … It makes it difficult for the reader to quickly identify the methodology, discussion, and interpretation of results; There is no clear discussion that connects the findings to the broader context and existing literature; Specifically: the Materials and Methods section should include sample preparation, experimental setup, and parameter definitions; The Results section should present the quantitative findings; The Discussion section should interpret the results, compare them with the literature, and explain the underlying physical mechanisms; The Conclusion should summarize the key findings and highlight their practical implications.
• Title: the phrase “Hole Formation Law” sounds unnatural in English - a better choice would be “Mechanism of Hole Formation” or “Dynamics of Hole Formation”.
• Abstract: the abstract contains too many quantitative data (e.g., percentages of changes in hole depth and volume under different pressures), which is inappropriate for this section. The abstract should concisely present: the research problem, the methodology, the key findings (qualitatively), the significance of the results. In this case, the abstract resembles a section from the results or conclusions rather than a proper summary.
• Keywords: The current keywords need to be changed. They should not repeat words from the title but instead reflect key concepts from the abstract.
• Introduction: the introduction is overloaded with references, without clearly identifying the research gap - there is no critical analysis of these research or their connection to the current study.
• Methodology: validation of material similarity is insufficient. There is no comparison with actual coal samples; Statistical analysis of data is missing. No standard deviations, measurement errors, or significance tests are provided; The number of experimental repetitions is not stated, making it difficult to assess reliability. The paper uses specific methods (e.g., silicone replication, Archimedes’ method), but does not cite standard sources that would validate the use of these techniques; Include methodological references that validate the techniques used (e.g., replication, volume measurement). The paper uses the TWS-300A device, but there are no references explaining its accuracy, operating principles, or previous use in scientific research; Cite relevant standards and protocols if they are used in the experiments.
• Results: the nonlinear correlation between parameters is not mathematically modelled; There is no discussion of physical mechanisms behind shape changes (e.g., fluid dynamics, erosion); No comparison with existing models from the literature, despite citing relevant studies; Include statistical analysis and specify the number of experimental repetitions; Introduce mathematical modeling of parameter relationships; Add discussion of physical mechanisms and compare with existing theories; Consider the applicability of results to real-world mining conditions.
• Conclusion: the conclusions repeat results but do not offer broader interpretation or practical implications, than a critical interpretation. The conclusion should include specific scientific contributions and the paper’s relevance to the academic community.
• References: although the analysis shows there is no excessive citation of the same author or journal, most references come from a limited number of domestic sources (e.g., Journal of China Coal Society), which may indicate a local orientation without a broader international perspective; There are no citations from leading international journals in the fields of mining engineering, fluid mechanics, or materials science; Add international sources that address similar topics; Add references that deal with the practical application of the results - such as mine safety, exploitation optimization, or gas hazard management.
• Figures: there is no scaling or measurement markers on the cavity images, which makes quantitative interpretation difficult; Some visual representations (e.g., Figures 4, 6, 9) include photographs without any explanation of the imaging method (e.g., camera type, resolution, lighting conditions); The figures are not always directly connected to the text - in some cases, they are insufficiently discussed in the analysis; Add measurement scales and markers to the cavity images; Include a description of the imaging and image processing methods. More clearly connect the figures to the analysis and interpretation in the text.
• Tables: there are no statistical indicators (e.g., standard deviation, number of repetitions); The tables do not specify the source of the data (whether from experiments, literature, or simulations); There is no discussion of data variability - all values are presented as fixed; Expand the tables to include statistical data and the number of repetitions; More clearly connect tables to the analysis and interpretation in the text.
• Language: the language is often grammatically incorrect and stylistically inconsistent (likely due to translation). Improve linguistic and stylistic coherence of the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Language: the language is often grammatically incorrect and stylistically inconsistent (likely due to translation). Improve linguistic and stylistic coherence of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article "Research on Hole Formation Law of High-Pressure Water Jet Based on Silicone Replication Technology"

This study investigates the hole formation law of high-pressure water jets in low-permeability coal seams. The authors introduce a novel silicone replication technology to visualize and measure the complex morphology of the jet-formed holes. Their main contribution is the identification of two distinct development stages—a rapid expansion phase and a stable adjustment phase—and the analysis of how jet pressure and confining pressure influence the hole's geometric parameters and morphology. The paper provides valuable insights and a novel experimental approach to this complex phenomenon.

A) General concept comments

The paper addresses a highly relevant scientific and engineering problem with a novel methodological approach. The use of silicone replication technology is a major strength, allowing for a detailed, three-dimensional analysis of the hole morphology, which is a significant improvement over previous method. However, a few areas need to be strengthened to enhance the paper's scientific rigor and reproducibility.

B) Areas of Weakness:

• The reproducibility of the study could be improved. While the material composition is listed, the paper lacks a justification for these specific proportions and does not explicitly state how the homogeneity of the synthesized samples was confirmed. This is a critical factor, as sample variations could introduce uncontrolled variables into the results.
• The scientific explanation of the observed phenomena could be more in-depth. The paper describes the transition in hole morphology from a wedge-shaped to a more elliptical or teardrop-shaped form with increased confining pressure, but the underlying physical mechanisms are not thoroughly explained.
• The validity of these results for a wider range of conditions is a key concern. The study uses reconstructed coal samples, which may not accurately represent the geomechanical properties of a real coal seam in a subsurface environment. A discussion of these limitations would be beneficial.

C) Specific comments

• Line 91, Table 1: Please provide a scientific justification for the chosen proportions of coal powder, cement, and other materials. Are these proportions representative of a specific type of coal seam? How was the homogeneity of the mixture verified before the experiments?
• Line 166, Figures 5 and 7: The data show a clear trend, but a statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA) could be performed to confirm if the observed differences in the rate of change for hole depth and volume are statistically significant across the different jet pressures.
• Line 297, Conclusion (3): The paper states that increasing confining pressure "suppresses" hole development. What specific physical mechanisms do the authors propose to explain this phenomenon, beyond the general mention of increased erosion resistance?
• Line 309: The paper suggests that higher confining pressure "strengthens the internal structure." This is a key hypothesis. Please provide a more detailed explanation or evidence to support this statement.

D) English Language and Style: The English language appears to be comprehensible, but it can be improved for greater clarity and fluency

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language appears to be comprehensible, but it can be improved for greater clarity and fluency

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I am pleased to inform you that I have completed the evaluation of your revised manuscript. It is clear that the modifications implemented in response to the reviewers' feedback have notably improved both the clarity and depth of the work. Your careful attention to the comments and suggestions has not only enhanced the quality of the manuscript but also increased its relevance within the academic field.

 

Given the significant advancements made, I consider the manuscript to be ready for publication. The revisions have strengthened the core arguments, improved the presentation of data, and refined the overall structure, thereby enhancing its scholarly merit.

 

Thank you for your thorough work and dedication to refining your research. I look forward to its publication and the contribution it will make to the academic discourse in your domain.

 

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Editor:

We sincerely appreciate your positive feedback on our revised manuscript and the valuable suggestions you offered to enhance its quality. It is a great honor to learn that this paper now meets the publication standards.

Based on the feedback from other review experts, we have meticulously revised and optimized the paper. This includes improving grammatical structures, adjusting sentence formulations, and refining both the organizational framework and logical flow of the text—significantly enhancing overall coherence and readability. All revisions were carefully considered to align with the journal’s academic standards while ensuring the manuscript meets the expected benchmarks of scientific rigor.

Once again, we sincerely thank you and the panel of reviewers for the time and effort invested in this evaluation process. Your valuable insights are of great significance to enhancing our research. We look forward to publishing the findings and hope they will make meaningful contributions to academic discourse in this field.

Thank you and best regards.

Sincerely,

Liwen Guo (corresponding author) and other-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second version of the paper has been significantly improved compared to the first. The authors carefully considered the reviewer’s suggestions and implemented them into the text, which enhanced the clarity, relevance, and practical value of the work.

Recommendation:

• Include standard deviations or error margins in the result tables to enhance statistical validity.
• Add a flowchart of the experimental procedure to visually clarify the process.
• Expand the discussion on practical applications of the findings in real mining conditions - e.g., how parameter optimization could be applied in mines with specific geological features; Include comparisons with similar international studies that use alternative methods (e.g., abrasive jets, laser drilling).
• Ensure consistent terminology - e.g., use either “hole morphology” or “cavity morphology” throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf