这是审稿意见，
<DELTA>Ep+ <DELTA>Ek + <DELTA>Edis = W, where <DELTA>Ep is the potential energy variation (gravitational and elastic), <DELTA>Ek is the kinetic energy variation, <DELTA>Edis the energy dissipation et W the work of external forces (mainly gravitational load here).
In your study, you consider that the second state is in static equilibrium too, which means <DELTA>Ek = 0 and you calculate <DELTA>Ep (with the reasonable assumption of neglecting the potential gravitational energy). You then didn't consider the others terms : W and <DELTA>Edis. It is clearly a strong assumption to define the energy release equal to <DELTA>Ep. My opinion is that the energy release must be more carefully defined and discussed. Another possibility is to calculate <DELTA>Edis in which you will find that a part of it can correspond to a yielding dissipation (and cracks propagation). When this yielding energy is not enough to respect the first law of thermodynamics with the constraint that <DELTA>Ek = 0, this means that there is an excessive energy that will take the form of a seismic energy. This could also be called released energy. In your case, it is probable that you can't find any seismic energy because you consider a Mohr-Coulomb criterion with no softening. However, most of rock material display a softening behavior for small confining stresses (this is the case for the gap which displays a free surface) - this should be taken into account or discuss in the application.
这个审稿意见，是让我按照他的意见重新计算呢？还是不用重新计算，但是在文章里面做充分的讨论就行？

 返回小木虫查看更多