Column Penetration and Diffusion Mechanism of Bingham Fluid Considering Displacement Effect

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

• The research idea has certain novelty but the manuscript is not well written. An English language review is necessary.
• The discussion and conclusions are not good. Major revision is needed.
• An international insight is lacking. The references are mainly from Chinese publications. If there is a lack of international publications, it must be clearly stated in the paper.

Detailed comments:

Row 41-90:

An international insight is lacking.

 

Row 43-44:

“groundwater problems, ground subsidence, tunnel deformation and dam leakage” are more of the causes of disasters instead of disasters. For example, tunnel deformation always happens but only large deformation can cause disasters including tunnel collapsing and so on.

 

Row 46:

Grouting cannot solve all kinds of groundwater disasters and geotechnical engineering problems.

 

Row 46-49:

It would be clearer to the readers if one or two sentences are added describing how grouting can solve groundwater issues. This description will complete the background paragraph.

 

Row 52-54:

Wordy sentence. Reference to the Maag formula?

 

Row 87:

Do not start a sentence with “and”. Use either no “and” or “, and”.

 

Row 81-90:

If this is the conclusion of your article, do not write it in Introduction chapter.

 

Row 92 and on:

“Grout” is non-countable, same as “water”. “Grouts” is not correct.

 

Row 94:

It is not the groundwater is occupied, it is the pores that are occupied. You can also say either “the water is displaced by the grout” or “the water is replaced by the grout”.

 

Row 99-100:

If you are describing the assumptions of the grouting penetration, it is better to formulate the sentence as: “The penetration and diffusion of grout during grouting are analyzed based on the following assumptions:” In this way the assumption nr.2 becomes more natural.

 

Row 100:

Are the references 19-21 origin references for the assumptions?

 

Row 111:

Please elaborate figure 1 in the text, especially what is the disturbance range of the grout. What is the difference between slurry and grout? If they are the same, stick to one of them throughout the manuscript.

 

Row 113-133:

“As indicated by Kong [22],”. Is it the origin reference? Is this theory novel in this reference?

 

Row 119:

Incorrect use of “without”.

 

Row 121:

Figure 2. Is this “tube” the same as the “grouting tube”? Or it is the capillary channel mentioned in row 114? If the latter is the case, please use the same expression as in your text.

 

Row 123:

“obtained”

 

Row 121 and on:

Please explain every new symbol or new parameter, e.g. τ in Figure 2, τ0, μ, and r1 in eq. (1), τs in eq. (2)

 

Row 124:

Is the “pipeline” the same as “capillary channel”? If so, please stick to one expression to avoid confusion.

 

Row 134-169, Equation 7-18. Are equations 4 and 22 origin references for the equations? It´s very unclear. Furthermore, it is somewhat unclear what´s novel in the present study.

 

Row 136:

(7) is not an equation.

 

Row 151:

Should Y1 = λ+C1*r instead of /r?

 

Row 153:

Please rewrite and split equation (13) into four equations to make it clearer. It will also make the following derivation easier to follow.

Do not write two equations in the same row.

 

Row 158:

D=M(Lnrw-lnr0), the brackets are missing.

 

Row 177:

“It can be seen that they are typical Bingham fluids.” Where is this description from? Is it from the experiment by Yang? Clarify it.

 

Row 170 (Chapter 4):

Please present the experimental setup by Yang, so that the comparison can become easier to understand and more solid.

 

Row 183:

“As indicated by Yang [22],” Is this referees origin for the expression in Equation 19? Carify.

 

Row 196 (Table 3):

Equation (18) and (19) instead of “formula”

 

Row 198:

A diagram with curves is not ideal for this figure. There is nothing in between G1, G2 to G5. Additionally, the variables among G1 to G5 are not controlled meaning it is even hard to discuss the trend from G1 to G5.

If your purpose is just to compare your calculation with the experiments, Table 3 alone is sufficient. Figure 3 can be removed.

 

Row:205

Has been studied by others. Perform a proper literature review.

 

Row 216-219:

This sentence is too long and incorrect in grammar, thus difficult to follow. Please rewrite it.

 

Row 229:

It is not a gradual decrease, it is a rapid drop followed by a stable decrease.

 

Row 229-238:

Is the pressure distribution in Figure 4 the pressure distribution within the 0.8m radius of diffusion zone? Or is it the pressure at the grout front vs the grout front position (i.e. the penetration)?

If it is the former type of distribution, the discussion from row 229-238 seems to be centered around the interface between the grout and the water. However, this interface has little to do with the distribution in the grouted zone. What do you think?

 

Row 223-234:

Why should the grout pressure drop when resistance increase? It sounds counter-intuitive. Please explain further.

 

Row 246:

Are the same as what?

 

Row 255:

No it is not linearly. You also mentioned the growth rate decreases, so it cannot be linear.

 

Row 254:

The ground water has quite limited impact on the penetration as seen from Figure 6.

 

Row 267-270:

One cannot get this conclusion from Figures 4-7. You have talked about it so do not repeat it here.

 

Row 273-280:

You need to have much more comprehensive description over the simulation method, including for example, which module of COMSOL were you using? What are the governing equations? How do you include ground water into the simulation? And so on.

Please elaborate further on this.

 

Row 281-288:

In my opinion, this simulation can be simplified to 2D since the geometry of the cylinder with constant radius can be easily represented by a 2D model. Please motivate the choice of a 3D model over a 2D model.

 

Row 306-314:

(2) and (3) are not conclusions, there is only a description of what you have done but not what you have learnt from them.

 

 

Author Response

Please check the attachment。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is studying an interesting topic to the reader in both experimental and theoretical ways. Few comments can help to improve the manuscript: 

1- The manuscript needs a detailed review (grammar and language) and preferable by a native speaker. 2- Charts have a very poor quality. Please update the charts with higher resolution ones.  3- The current conclusion is very limited and does not offer a real value to the reader or reflect the research objectives. The conclusion should be extended to offer clear bullet points that can help the readers and offer an applicable conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The English writing has been significantly improved. The discussion and conclusions are better than the previous version. Minor changes may still be needed.

Row 148 and on:

Please explain every new symbol or new parameter, e.g. τ in Figure 2, τ0, μ, and r1 in eq. (1), τs in eq. (2)

Row 305-310

These two sentences are difficult to understand.

“…, which is contact considering… with not considering…” considering rephrase it. An example could be “…, which connects the scenarios considering the displacement effect and ignoring the displacement effect.”

“The secondary development… respectively obtains their….”. What is “their” referring to? And what does “respectively” indicate?

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf