Review Reports - Parameterization of the Model of Artificial Clay Freezing Considering the Effect of Pore Water Salinity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The detailed comments, please see the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments. We tried to take them all into account. Edits on the main part and text wrapping in the article are highlighted with a yellow marker. English language edits are marked in Word edit mode. Below are our responses to comments:

The abstract is very general and covers a wide range. For example, there is a lack of description on the effectiveness of the numerical finite difference algorithm based on the equivalent heat capacity method mentioned in the abstract in solving the problem of clay layer freezing.

We have corrected the phrase about the efficiency of the algorithm in the abstract.

The block diagram of artificial freezing method described in Figure 1 and the simulation results and discussion described in Section 4 seem to be a little out of touch with the middle chapter, especially section 4 is not well connected with the previous chapters and is a little vague.

We agree with the comment. We have added another Figure at the beginning of section 3 in order to reduce confusion with the calculated geometry.

In the manuscript, Section 2 is missing, this part should be the description of test scheme or test method, etc. However, there are two section 3 in the text.

We have corrected the numbering of sections. Section 2 is now present.

There are many problems in the detailed description in the article. The following are listed for the author's reference: ① What does (3) mean in the title of Figure 2 and Figure 4?; ② In formula (7) (8) (9), the subscript of water seems to use l and w symbols. Is it contradictory? ③ In the description of lines 215 to 220, formula (14) comes from the differentiation of formula (9), which is obviously wrong, it should come from the differentiation of formula (10); ④ There is no specific description about figure 5 in the manuscript.

We have fixed these issues. There really were references to the wrong formulas and there was confusion with the indices. All changes are highlighted in yellow in the text of the manuscript. The description of figure 6 can be found in lines 234-239.

It is suggested that the author should refine and focus on the objectives of the article and reorganize the manuscript. The reviewer believes that the title and content are subject to "parameterization of the model of clay freezing considering the effect of salinity of pore water". It seems appropriate to remove the description of artificial freezing or describe it as a future application direction and objective.

Thank you for your comment. But we would like to keep the term artificial soil freezing in the manuscript. There are several reasons for our wish. First, we consider a model of soil freezing with a single freezing pipe to fairly low temperatures. This corresponds to the technology of artificial freezing of soils. Secondly, we are specialists primarily in the artificial freezing of soils and we want our colleagues involved in the issues of artificial freezing to recognize and to pay attention to this paper. At the same time, we understand that the results of the study can be generalized to the case of natural soil freezing in permafrost conditions etc.

English writing and grammar and Technical Term description used in this paper is poor, the authors should check the English grammars and the technical term description, and revise the full text if the manuscript would be re-submitted it in future

The manuscript was given for proofreading by a native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a good theoretical work, but it must be supported by real data.

It must be corrected:

Line 76: How have the 9 soils been selected?

What characteristics do they have? Indicate edaphic characteristics. What type of soils is according to the FAO classification?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments. We tried to take them all into account. Edits on the main part and text dislocated in the manuscript are highlighted with a yellow marker. English language edits are marked in edit mode. Below are our responses to comments:

Line 76: How have the 9 soils been selected?

We have added an explanation to the text of the manuscript.

What characteristics do they have? Indicate edaphic characteristics. What type of soils is according to the FAO classification?

We have given some information about the origin of the soil samples. In our opinion, providing information on the edaphic characteristics in this case is inappropriate due to the specific subject of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Fluids (ISSN 2311-5521): Manuscript ID fluids-1724940

Type: Article

Title: Parameterization of the Model of Artificial Clay Freezing Considering the Effect of Salinity of Pore Water

Authors: Mikhail Semin, Lev Levin, Segrey Bublik, Gennadiy Brovka, Andrey Brovka, Kirill Agutin

Comments for authors:

Introduction. Lines 23 to 46. The arguments given by the authors are purely conceptual and are not appropriate in the Introduction. In the Introduction, a state of the art of recent work carried out in the same scientific line is made, and an assessment is made of the results contributed, the degree of progress and importance. It is recommended that the authors rewrite this part of the Introduction accordingly.

Figure 1. Consider the bibliographic reference of this Figure and also mention it in the "References" Section.

Section 3 "Experimental data". Authors are encouraged to change the name of this Section to "3. Materials and methods". Check.

Lines 67 and 68. The authors state: "Argillite-like clay is a typical soil that..."; this concept literally contradicts the concept of clay; it seems that the argument is not well stated and this material is interpreted as a "soil". It is recommended that the authors review and rewrite this idea. Check.

Line 76. The authors mention nine test samples, but do not make clear the origin of the samples tested, sampling method, depth of the samples, type of formation in which the samples lie, physical characteristics, among others.... Moreover, a map showing the location of the sampling points would be very beneficial for the orientation of readers. Please rewrite.

Line 87. Please change "0.01 ^oС," to "0.01 ºС". Check throughout the manuscript.

Lines 92-124. The authors mix methods with results, which makes the information given confusing. It is recommended that the authors develop a new section entitled "Results" in which they include all the arguments given in lines 92 to 124.

Line 161. Please change "Table. 1" to "Table 1". Check.

Line 180. Please change "(see Figure 3)" to "(Figure 3)". Revise throughout the manuscript.

Line 293. Please change "Figs. 6a." to "Fig. 6a.". Check.

Section 4 "Simulation results and discussion". The authors only mention two bibliographic citations: [15], in Line 292 and [14], in Line 296.... Moreover, the references used already appear in the Introduction of this work. Authors are advised to increase the number of bibliographic citations in this section, as all scientific work must be contrasted with those of other authors, in order to validate the results obtained. Please rewrite.

Section 5 "Conclusions". Lines 305 to 307. The authors state: "The thermodynamic model formulated and parameterized in this study is the starting point for further analysis of the process of artificial freezing of various types of soils on more complex objects [34]". Two issues are recommended to the authors: first, move this paragraph to the end of the Conclusions; second, delete the bibliographic citation, since in the Conclusions as in the Abstract no bibliographic references are made. Please rewrite accordingly.

References. The work needs to be enriched with more bibliographical references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments. We tried to take them all into account. Edits on the main content and text dislocated in the manuscript are highlighted with a yellow marker. English language edits are marked in edit mode. Below are our responses to comments:

We have significantly expanded the introduction section, we added new references to the literature.

Figure 1. Consider the bibliographic reference of this Figure and also mention it in the "References" Section.

Apparently, the remark concerns the fact that this figure is quite similar to the figure from our other work. We have added a reference to this work. At the same time, we consider it important to note that we drew this figure independently and did not use ready-made sketches.

Section 3 "Experimental data". Authors are encouraged to change the name of this Section to "3. Materials and methods". Check.

Done.

We have reformulated this phrase.

We have given some information about the origin of the soil samples. Unfortunately, we cannot show a map.

Line 87. Please change "0.01 oС," to "0.01 ºС". Check throughout the manuscript.

Done.

We have divided section 2 into two subsections.

Line 161. Please change "Table. 1" to "Table 1". Check.

Done.

Line 180. Please change "(see Figure 3)" to "(Figure 3)". Revise throughout the manuscript.

Done.

Line 293. Please change "Figs. 6a." to "Fig. 6a.". Check.

Done.

We have added several additional references to the literature. It is difficult to refer to other studies when analyzing the solution, because the study of salt migration and freezing point depression for this formulation of the problem has not been studied before.

Done.

References. The work needs to be enriched with more bibliographical references.

We have added new references to the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: fluids-1724940-v2

Title: Parameterization of the Model of Artificial Clay Freezing Considering the Effect of Pore Water Salinity

The author has made detailed modifications to the article and simply explained and supplemented the comments of the reviewers, especially the quality of English has been improved a lot, but there are still some problems. For example, the author is too simple and vague in answering some comments put forward by the reviewers, so that it is difficult to judge how to modify them. Due to the changes in the manuscript, some opinions on imperfect modification and need to be revised are briefly listed. It is suggested that the author carefully modify it according to the previous opinions.

Specific comments are described as follows (for the revised version v2):

1. The abstract is still very general and covers a wide range.

2. What does (6) mean in the title of Figure 3 and Figure 6? This means the Formula (3) or others?

3. In the description of lines 269 to 271, formula (14) comes from the differentiation of formula (9), please add the process which how to get it.

4. There is still no specific description about figure 6 in the manuscript, please add it.

5. It is suggested that the author should refine and focus on the objectives of the article and reorganize the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments. We tried to take them all into account. New edits are highlighted with a yellow marker.

The abstract is still very general and covers a wide range.

We tried to improve the abstract and have added new information to it.

What does (6) mean in the title of Figure 3 and Figure 6? This means the Formula (3) or others?

(6) in figure 3 is referring to formula (6). As for the figure 5 (that's what we are talking about, as we understood), there was another unfortunate typo in the number of the formula. Now we have indicated the correct formula number there - (7).

In the description of lines 269 to 271, formula (14) comes from the differentiation of formula (9), please add the process which how to get it.

We apologize for our carelessness. Another annoying typo. Formula (14) is obtained from formula (10). Corrections added to the manuscript.

There is still no specific description about figure 6 in the manuscript, please add it.

We have added comments on figure 6.

It is suggested that the author should refine and focus on the objectives of the article and reorganize the manuscript.

Thanks for the comment. But we would like to keep the chosen structure and goals in this manuscript. In our opinion, the structure of the article is quite consistent with the standards of scientific articles. And the presentation of materials is consistent and reflects the real sequence of the research.

We think that the term "artificial freezing" corresponds to the current state of research described in this manuscript, so this word is better to write in the title.

Best regards,

the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes introduced have been very successful.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks again for the comments made and the general positive assessment of our manuscript.

Best regards,

Mikhail Semin

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have replied to all the questions formulated by the reviewer. The paper has gained in structural quality and content, and it deserves to be published in the Fluids Journal.

Congratulations to the authors for their hard work !

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks again for the comments made and the general positive assessment of our manuscript.

Best regards,

Mikhail Semin