Study on the Influence of Sample Size on the Mechanical and Integrity Characteristics of Coal Measure Sandstone under High Strain Rate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Study on the influence of sample size on the mechanical and integrity characteristics of coal measure sandstone under high strain rate

 

The research carried out by the authors is very useful. After critical review of this paper the observations are as follows:

 

Observations:

 

1.         The nomenclature should be given.

 

2.         Brand and model of Scanning electron microscope (SEM) along with figure should be given.

 

3.         It is advisable to write the line of 106 line number as “The diameter of the sample was 50 mm”.

 

4.         It is advisable to write the line of 108 line number as “test impact pressure remained the same at 0.35 MPa”. Similar pattern should be followed in the entire text of this paper.

 

5.         Again it is advisable to write the line number 202 as “Coal-bearing sandstone is extracted from the top of a coal mine 300 m” or “Coal-bearing sandstone is extracted from the top of a coal mine 300 meter”. Similar pattern should be followed in the entire text of this paper.

 

6.         Equation numbers should be properly aligned.

 

7.         The section heading “6. Conclusion” should be written as “6. Conclusions” since there are more than one conclusions.

 

Submission of plagiarism report of this paper by the authors is encouraged. 

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

This article effectively describes the impact of size on the mechanical and damage characteristics of sandstones. While the results are well-presented, certain issues, particularly in Part 2 (Experiments), require attention before the final submission:

- There are typographical errors in the text that need correction, such as those found in line 68.

- Mentioning the first name or its abbreviation of authors is unnecessary when citing their works.

- Figures 2 and 4 should be omitted as they do not contribute substantively to your article.

- The MIP section is excessively lengthy and appears more like a manual than a component of a scientific article. It is advisable to retain Figure 3 and trim down the majority of the MIP section.

Overall, the article is overly lengthy, with a significant number of pages devoted to the Experiments section. This section requires thorough revision.

- Lines 226-231 exhibit repetition and should be removed.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English was good and acceptable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper conducted the SHPB test with other SEM and mercury tests. Although SHPB tests have been done by many researchers, this research focused on the size effect and have collected some solid data, which can contribute the knowledge in this topic. Generally, the paper is okay, but the introduction needs to be improved as the current introduction didn't reflect the importance of this research. Also need to strength the significance of this research to engineering problem.

 

1. The significance of this paper has not been well explained in the introduction part.

2. Some sentences are not properly organized, such as page 2, line 27: "the change in the direction of rock size".

3. Figure 3 can be improved with better arrangement.

4. Is the mercury injection test enough to cover the wide size range of pore structure?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor review is needed to check some sentences.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf