Evaluation of the Effects of Pre-Grouting in Combination with Group Holes on the Risk of Water Inrush through Coal Seam Floors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In order to accurately identify the effect of grouting in the working face of coal mines, with Guhanshan Mine 15051 face grouting project as the research object, based on the comprehensive information of grouting borehole investigation, and the evaluation of the risk of water inrush, five major control factors were selected to characterize the effect of grouting in the working face and an evaluation index system was proposed, the subjective and objective weights were determined by applying the AHP and CRITIC methods, respectively, and the combined weights were calculated using the combined assignment method. Based on the fuzzy variable set theory, the quantitative evaluation of the grouting effect on the working face was carried out, and the reliability of the evaluation results was verified by field test results. The research is novel and can guide the evaluation of the effect of similar grouting projects, and I consider that it is can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

further revision and improvement:

(1) The introduction is too complex and can be refined.

(2) 2.2 Hierarchical analysis method, 2.3 CRITIC method and other theories can be merged together.

(3) The focus of this research is the establishment of the evaluation model, and the elaboration of this part is relatively simple, which should be presented in detail.

(4) The complexity of the fault in section 3.2.1 can be quantitatively described by parameters such as fault fractal dimension, fault density value, number of intersection points, fault strength index, etc. Section 3.2.5 uses the sudden water-inrush coefficient method for quantification, but the article lacks a description of this method, please append it.

(5) The conclusion can be further refined to make it more concise and to highlight key research content.

(6) The references should be supplemented with the latest research results and ensure that the citation format meets the requirements of the journal WATER.

(7) In line 274, the grading order should be stated in descending order. Complex and moderately complex should be switched. The classification name in Table 2 does not match the name above.

(8) In Table 3, the second row, 0.03＜T  for safe？ maybe T＜0.03； last row   should be change to T

≥0.1.

(9) The caption of Figure 10 can indicate the picture after grouting or reinforcement? Revise the figure caption carefully.

introduction and conclusions should be streamlined, refined.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), CRITIC method, and combination weighting method to ascertain the significance of multiple indicators. It constructs a comprehensive evaluation model for a fuzzy variable set and assesses the grouting effectiveness of the Guhanshan Mine 15051 working face. The selection of evaluation indices is diverse, and the obtained results align with practical project outcomes, thereby offering valuable insights for related project evaluations. Nevertheless, certain issues merit additional deliberation or rectification:

1. The fractal dimension serves as a descriptor for the intricacy of the contour of an object. In the case of the workingl face, its contour manifests irregularities and exhibits spatial distribution characteristics of elevations and depressions. However, the computation of the fractal dimension of the working face's contour is based on the planar representation depicted in Figure 5. It is imperative to elucidate the rationale and reliability underlying the calculation of the fractal dimension from the planar drawing.

2. Table 2 delineates the classification criteria for fault complexity. A comprehensive elucidation of the classification basis is warranted.

3. The evaluation methodology employed herein amalgamates established basic safety evaluation theories. It is essential to expound upon the innovative aspects of this evaluation model, with particular emphasis on strategies for mitigating errors stemming from both subjective and objective evaluation methodologies.

4. The rationale behind constructing the judgment matrix and the systematic selection of weights in Section 3.3.1 necessitate elucidation.

5. How is the characteristic value H, as delineated in the classification standard for water inrush in the working face floor, categorized? Furthermore, apart from the absence of areas exhibiting poor grouting effects, are there additional corroborative evidences substantiating the evaluation of areas with excellent, good, and satisfactory grouting effects in engineering practice?

6. It is recommended to include a diagram illustrating the research methodologies employed in Section 2, particularly accentuating the innovative features of the methods utilized.

In conclusion, it is recommended that the manuscript be revised and amended in accordance with the aforementioned issues. Upon meeting the revision requirements, it is recommended that the article be accepted for publication..

Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The primary purpose of this article is to explore the safety mining results of the 15051 working face to prove that the selected evaluation index factors are representative, the established model is reliable, and the evaluation results are in line with reality. Overall, good results have been achieved. So I give a suggestion for minor modifications, and it can be published.

2. If the authors use Figure 2 as a base map and go to the continuation. Would you please indicate the length and width or scale in Figure 2 to be read easily?

3. Can the description in Figure 3 mention how many holes are drilled?

4. Why is the grout volume so high on the lower left side in Figure 7?

5. The results in Figure 7 and Figure 8 seem similar; why are they performed twice?

6. The results in Figure 12 and Figure 13 are very different. Can there be more explanation in the text to highlight the influence of grouting on the results?

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

A high-quality article presenting the results of real research, on the other hand, the use of advanced mathematical operations to assess and mitigate water hazards in a hard coal mine. I my opinion it is useful for potential stakeholders, e.g. people responsible for maintaining safety in mines with similar natural hazards.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all issues, thereby this paper is acceptable for me.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf