Numerical Simulation Research on the Effect of Artificial Barrier Properties on Fracture Height
, Guchang Zhang 2 and Fujian Zhou 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In the abstract section, quantitative findings should be reported.
2. Please end your abstract with a "take-home" message.
3. Rearrange keywords alphabetically.
4. It is unclear whether the author's something new in this work. According to evaluation, several published studies by other researchers in the past adequately explain the issues you made in the present paper. Please be careful to highlight in the introduction section anything really innovative in this work.
5. It is essential to summarize previous studies' merits, novelties, and limitations in the introductory part to emphasize the gaps in the research that the latest research seeks to address.
6. What is the basis of fluid flow on the present finite element’s simulation? Only computational fluid dynamic, only fluid structure interaction, or both of the? Deep explnatanion with reason is needed. In addition, to support this explanation, the MDPI-suggested reference should be included as follows: Performance Comparison of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluid on a Heterogeneous Slip/No-Slip Journal Bearing System Based on CFD-FSI Method. Fluids 2022, 7, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7070225
7. To enhance the understandability of the section on materials and methods easier for them to understand rather than just depending on the main text as it exists at the moment, the authors could add additional illustrations in the form of figures that explain the workflow of the present study.
8. Is the present model performing mesh sensitivity study? Shows it. If not, the present model is not appropriate and flaws, should be rejected.
9. How about meshing strategy in the present model? It must be explained.
10. The present computational study should be validated with relevant experimental study, where is?
11. The number of elements, number of nodes, and type of element should be explained.
12. What is the type of computational simulation process? It is static, quasi static, dynamic, transient? Explain it.
13. The materials assumption of the present model should be explained, such as homogeneous or heterogeneous, and others.
14. Error and tolerance of experimental tools used in this work are important information that needs to be explained in the manuscript. It is would use as a valuable discussion due to different results in the further study by other researcher.
15. Outcomes must be compared to similar past research.
16. The authors need to improve the discussion in the present article become more comprehensive. The present form was insufficient.
17. The limitation of the present study needs to be added at the end of the discussion section before entering the conclusion section.
18. Add more detail to the conclusion by structuring it as a paragraph rather than in point-by-point as a present form.
19. In the conclusion, please explain the further research.
20. The authors should enrich their references in the revised manuscript from five years ago. MDPI reference is strongly recommended.
21. The authors occasionally created paragraphs in the entire document that were just one or two phrases long, which made the explanation difficult to understand. To make their explanation into a longer, more thorough paragraph, the authors should expand it. It is advised to use at least three sentences in a paragraph, with one serving as the primary sentence and the others as supporting phrases.
22. The manuscript needs to be proofread by the authors since it has grammatical and language issues.
23. It is suggested to the authors for providing graphical abstract in the system after revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
it has comprehensive job, and however, if the authors address some issues, it will help to raise the level of the article, so it is recommended to apply what is said in the article. Specific comparisons should be made to previously published papers that have a similar purpose. This needs to be done in the manuscript itself. This is an important criterion in the decision of whether or not to publish a manuscript. Please be sure that your abstract and your Conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of your work but also concisely state the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature. This manuscript should be polished by a native speaker or a person who is good at English. Still Lots of grammar problem and missing letters exist in the whole paper, which will seriously influence the reading.
Other points:
1. Increase the quality of all pictures to 300 dpi
2. The author should prepare a general table and add up to date results, and cite relevant models in the introduction and discussion parts.
3. Please add error bar to the results
4. How the author can confirmed using these kind of model in oil field, what consideration?
5. Use below items for enriched introduction and cite، it is recommended use them at first of article.
https://doi.org/10.22050/ijogst.2021.136325
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821931-7.00002-X
https://doi.org/10.22050/ijogst.2021.257740.1571
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Good job to the authors, I have one major comments that need to be addressed. As the authors explained the present investigation is only performing computational simulation without experimental investigation. The reviewer suggest the authors to explain the urgency of computational simulation in the present study compared with experimental investigation, such as brings the advantages in faster results, lower cost, and efficiency resource. It needs to explained in introduction and/or discussion section. Refer the recent relevant computational simulation study of porous media as follows: Level of Activity Changes Increases the Fatigue Life of the Porous Magnesium Scaffold, as Observed in Dynamic Immersion Tests, over Time. Sustainability 2023, 15, 823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010823
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
