Study on the Distribution Trend of Rockburst and Ground Stress in the Hegang Mining Area
Guoshao Su
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
sustainability-2413987-review
Study on the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area
With the Hegang mining area as the research object, the geological and tectonic characteristics of each impact mine in the Hegang mining area are analysed to obtain the tectonic stress field distribution characteristics of each mine and the tectonic stress field distribution trend in the Hegang mining area. This is an interesting and valuable topic. My detailed opinions and suggestions are as follows:
1. Firstly, the abstract needs to be re-written to reflect the research methods, results, and significance of this paper. The current abstract is too lengthy and lacks focus. Moreover, the language requires deep polishing and there are too many grammar issues
2. Figure 1 lacks a scale, legend, and north arrow, and lacks clarity. Regional structural essential map needs to be added. Regional structure and its evolutionary history are also important research backgrounds. What is the relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 2.
3. The photos of on-site monitoring are important illustrative materials that need to be supplemented.
4. Missing annotation for rectangular border of two colors in Figure 12.
5. Does the author's research findings have universal significance or are they only applicable to the study area.
Extensive editing of English language required
Author Response
Summary of Changes and Responses to Comments
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Below, we list the issues raised by the editor and reviewers and our responses.
Comment 1: Firstly, the abstract needs to be re-written to reflect the research methods, results, and significance of this paper. The current abstract is too lengthy and lacks focus. Moreover, the language requires deep polishing and there are too many grammar issues
Response: Following your insightful suggestion, the Abstract and language have been improved.
Comment 2: Figure 1 lacks a scale, legend, and north arrow, and lacks clarity. Regional structural essential map needs to be added. Regional structure and its evolutionary history are also important research backgrounds. What is the relationship between Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Response: Figure 1 has been improved.
Figure 1 is Geological structure map of the Hegang mining area, Figure 2 is the location of in situ stress measurement points in the Hegang mining area. Figure 1 shows the distribution of major faults in different coal mines, and Figure 2 shows the location of in-situ stress measurement points in different mining areas.
Comment 3: The photos of on-site monitoring are important illustrative materials that need to be supplemented.
Response: In the process of the completion of the paper, the site is under construction, and the future study will add the site implementation and site photos.
Comment 4: Missing annotation for rectangular border of two colors in Figure 12.
Response: The Figure 12 has been improved.
Comment 5: Does the author's research findings have universal significance or are they only applicable to the study area.
Response: The research results are of great significance to similar geological conditions.
Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has revised by professionals.
Special thanks to you for your helpful comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made changes as needed. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.
We earnestly appreciate for editor’s/reviewers’ warm work, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Summary of Changes and Responses to Comments
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Below, we list the issues raised by the editor and reviewers and our responses.
Comment 1: The abstract is too long, and the wording is not concise enough. In the introduction, the authors should add a description of the organizational structure of this manuscript.
Response: Following your insightful suggestion, the abstract have been improved.
Comment 2: The figures and tables appearing in the paper should be mentioned in the text. For example, Figure 1 and Table 1 should be indicated in the text.
Response: Figure 1 and Table 1 shave been indicated in the text.
Comment 3: The values in lines 157 to 166 of the manuscript do not seem to agree with the data in Table 2, so please re-determine. At least I observe from Table 2 that the maximum horizontal principal stress from 400m to 500m is 17.9 to 22.87 MPa.
Response: The values has been improved.
Comment 4: There is an error in line 163, the depth should be 900m to 1000m.
Response: The depth has been improved.
Comment 5: There is no mention of Figure 4 in the main text. Please explain the information in Figure 4.
Response: The explain of Figure 4 has been added.
Comment 6: The author stated in the abstract that the structural stress field analysis results were verified. May I ask what method was used for verification? There seems to be no specific explanation in the main text
Response: The abstract has been improved.
Comment 7: In the numerical simulation section, the thickness of the coal seam in the simulation prototype is 9.63-15.92 m. However, the thickness of the coal seam in the established model is only 4 m. Could the author explain whether the model can simulate the real working conditions?
Response: The model can be scaled to simulate the mining process.
Comment 8: It is suggested to use arrows to connect the partially enlarged images in Figure 5 to better indicate the relationship between the three images.
Response: The figure has been improved.
Comment 9: It is suggested that the authors add a description of the mining method for the model in the numerical simulation section.
Response: This simulation adopts long-wall mining and roof caving management. According to the initial state close to the stratum, the initial stress caused by the dead weight of the overlying rock is simulated. The full thickness method was used for simulation analysis, and the stress balance was calculated at each advance step before the next advance..
Comment 10: Table 4 shows that the peak energy at an angle of 70 degrees is 9.5×105J, but according to the legend information in Figure 9, the peak energy range of the coal seam should be between 9×105 and 9.16×105J. Similarly, the information between Table 4 and Figure 10 is inconsistent when the dip angle is 90 degrees. Please explain the reason.
Response: Figure 9 is simulated according to the geological situation of a mine, and Table 4 summarizes the whole Hegang mining area.
Comment 11: The energy areas U1 and U2 mentioned in lines 356 and 357 are suggested to be marked in the figure.
Response: The energy areas U1 and U2 marked in the figure.
Comment 12: It is recommended to add cloud images of coal seam energy simulation under different K1 and K2 conditions to the manuscript.
Response: The simulations under different conditions will be explained in subsequent studies.
Comment 13: There are format issues with the titles of Tables 5 and 6. Please correct them.
Response: The titles of Tables 5 and 6 has been improved.
Comment 14: The symbols that appear in the article should be unified. For example, the symbol of the ratio of the maximum horizontal principal stress to the self-weight stress is expressed in part of the article by K1, but in part by K1.
Response: The symbols has been improved.
Comment 15: Lines 387 to 397 of the manuscript are somewhat redundant, and these regularities have already been reflected in the simulation results analysis
Response: The manuscript has been improved.
Special thanks to you for your helpful comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made changes as needed. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.
We earnestly appreciate for editor’s/reviewers’ warm work, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript entitle “Study on the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area” is very interesting for researchers. The study on the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area presents valuable insights into the understanding of rockburst occurrences and their relationship with ground stress. The research methodology was sound, and the findings contribute to the knowledge base on rockburst phenomena. The study's significance lies in its potential to guide mining industry practices and enhance safety measures in the Hegang mining area. Further research can build upon these findings to develop more targeted prevention and mitigation strategies for rockburst incidents in similar mining regions. I suggest minor spelling mistakes and English language corrections before final acceptance.
Manuscript entitle “Study on the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area” is very interesting for researchers. The study on the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area presents valuable insights into the understanding of rockburst occurrences and their relationship with ground stress. The research methodology was sound, and the findings contribute to the knowledge base on rockburst phenomena. The study's significance lies in its potential to guide mining industry practices and enhance safety measures in the Hegang mining area. Further research can build upon these findings to develop more targeted prevention and mitigation strategies for rockburst incidents in similar mining regions. I suggest minor spelling mistakes and English language corrections before final acceptance.
Author Response
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper.
Reviewer 4 Report
As the depth of coal mining increases, rockbursts become more severe, and multiple rockburst hazards have occurred, seriously affecting coal mine safety production. Ground stress is one of the important factors that affect the occurrence of rockburst. Therefore, it is of great engineering significance to study the distribution characteristics of rockburst and ground stress. This paper explains the application of the distribution trend of rockburst and ground stress in the Hegang mining area, which has certain practical application significance, and provides a new idea for rockburst warning. However, the paper has the following minor drawbacks.
1. Line 41-43, High ground stress is only one of the fundamental causes of rockburst, not all of them. High ground stress is the energy source of rockburst.
2. More analysis of the current research status related to the theme of the manuscript needs to be added. And the significance of manuscript research is reflected by analyzing the shortcomings of existing research.
3. Figure 1, How is the geological structure reflected in Figure 1? More legends or details need to be added to the figure.
4. Line 157-166, A line or bar chart needs to be added to the manuscript to support the conclusions obtained.
5. “Rockburst” or “Rock burst” needs to be unified throughout the entire text.
6. Line 172-175, What methods are used to measure the energy released by rock bursts? Microseismic monitoring or other means?
7. Line 176-178, More details need to be added, including descriptions of typical rockburst damage images and features.
Author Response
Summary of Changes and Responses to Comments
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Below, we list the issues raised by the editor and reviewers and our responses.
Comment 1: Line 41-43, High ground stress is only one of the fundamental causes of rockburst, not all of them. High ground stress is the energy source of rockburst.
Response: Following your insightful suggestion, the words have been improved.
Comment 2: More analysis of the current research status related to the theme of the manuscript needs to be added. And the significance of manuscript research is reflected by analyzing the shortcomings of existing research.
Response: More analysis has been added.
Comment 3: Figure 1, How is the geological structure reflected in Figure 1? More legends or details need to be added to the figure.
Response: Figure 1 has been improved.
Comment 4: Line 157-166, A line or bar chart needs to be added to the manuscript to support the conclusions obtained.
Response: The Figure 4 has been added.
Comment 5: “Rockburst” or “Rock burst” needs to be unified throughout the entire text.
Response: “Rockburst” has unified throughout the entire text.
Comment 6: Line 172-175, What methods are used to measure the energy released by rock bursts? Microseismic monitoring or other means?
Response: Use microseismic monitoring to measure the energy released by rock bursts .
Comment 7: Line 176-178, More details need to be added, including descriptions of typical rockburst damage images and features.
Response: The typical rockburst damage images and features has been added.
Special thanks to you for your helpful comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made changes as needed. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.
We earnestly appreciate for editor’s/reviewers’ warm work, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
CAN BE ACCEPTED
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, this study has certain significance and the analysis method is reasonable. Minor modifications are acceptable for publication.
1. Is the statement 'they proposed a method for estimating shear strength' in line 50 of the paper incorrect? The introduction should indicate the significance and innovative points of this work, and the author also needs to add a description of the organizational structure of this manuscript.
2. It is suggested to use different headings for sections 3.1 and 3.1.1, as well as 3.2 and 3.2.1.
3. Why did the authors use an indirect conversion instead of directly establishing a functional relationship, given that they already knew the trend of the relationship between cohesion and (NH4)2SO4 solution concentration?
4. It is recommended to add a specific reference for the "inter-particle interaction model of mineral bodies" mentioned in line 147 of the paper.
5. In lines 270 to 271 of the paper, the author indicates that the friction coefficient between particles increases and the sliding friction strength of the ore body decreases. As a matter of principle, if the friction coefficient between particles increases, the sliding friction should increase. Please explain.
Overall, this study has certain significance and the analysis method is reasonable. Minor modifications are acceptable for publication.
1. Is the statement 'they proposed a method for estimating shear strength' in line 50 of the paper incorrect? The introduction should indicate the significance and innovative points of this work, and the author also needs to add a description of the organizational structure of this manuscript.
2. It is suggested to use different headings for sections 3.1 and 3.1.1, as well as 3.2 and 3.2.1.
3. Why did the authors use an indirect conversion instead of directly establishing a functional relationship, given that they already knew the trend of the relationship between cohesion and (NH4)2SO4 solution concentration?
4. It is recommended to add a specific reference for the "inter-particle interaction model of mineral bodies" mentioned in line 147 of the paper.
5. In lines 270 to 271 of the paper, the author indicates that the friction coefficient between particles increases and the sliding friction strength of the ore body decreases. As a matter of principle, if the friction coefficient between particles increases, the sliding friction should increase. Please explain.
Author Response
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
