Thickness and Strength Analysis of Prestressed Anchor (Cable) Compression Arch Based on Safe Co-Mining of Deep Coal and Gas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Issue 1.
The paper presents the stability of gas extraction roadways in coal mining and the use of prestressed bolt (cable) support to create a compression arch in the surrounding rock. The authors measured the mechanical properties of the rock and used numerical simulation software to analyze the effects of different bolt and cable parameters on the thickness and strength of the compression arch. They found that the bolt pre-tightening force and length had a significant effect on the thickness of the arch, while the lithology of the rock and the spacing and length of the bolts and cables had no obvious effect. All of these factors had a significant effect on the strength of the arch.
The authors found that the bolt pre-tightening force and length had a significant effect on the thickness of the compression arch. However, the lithology of the rock and the spacing and length of the bolts and cables had no significant effect on the thickness of the arch. On the other hand, all of these factors had a significant effect on the strength of the arch. The authors also applied prestressed anchor cables with different pre-tightening forces and lengths and analyzed their influence on the thickness and strength of the compression arch. The results of the study provide important insights into the design and construction of gas extraction roadways in coal mining and can be used to improve their stability and safety.
The manuscript has both practical applications and theoretical contributions that can benefit future studies. However, some corrections are needed before it can be accepted for publication.
Issue 2.
Important issues must be discussed in your research:
2.1. What is the primary objective of the research?
2.2. What is the significance of analyzing the thickness and strength of the prestressed anchor (cable) compression arch in coal and gas co-mining?
2.3. What methodology was used to measure the mechanical properties of the surrounding rock and analyze the effects of different parameters on the compression arch?
2.4. What are the main findings of the research with regard to the influence of bolt and cable parameters on the thickness and strength of the compression arch?
2.5. How can the results of the research be used to improve the safety and stability of gas extraction roadways in coal mining?
Issue 3.
Please provide answers for four important questions and provide lines where it is discussed:
3.1. What methods were used to measure the mechanical parameters of the surrounding rock in the Huainan and Huaibei mining areas? More details is required.
3.2. What numerical simulation software was used to analyze the typical position of fractured mudstone, mudstone, sandy mudstone, and muddy sandstone? Why it was used as many others are available.
3.3. What were the parameters used in the numerical simulation, such as bolt pre-tightening force, bolt spacing, bolt length, and anchor cable pre-tightening force and length?
3.4. How were the distribution characteristics of additional compressive stress on the surface of the side analyzed?
3.5. What were the main steps taken in the analysis of the influence of different lithology and bolt parameters on the thickness and strength of the compression arch?
Issue 4.
It is important to conduct an enhanced literature review in the Introduction section of the paper, as the authors have used only 22 references in one paragraph, which is insufficient for this type of research. A more comprehensive review of the relevant literature would help to establish the research gap and justify the need for the study. Additionally, it would provide a more robust foundation for the analysis and discussion of the results. The authors should consider expanding the literature review by including a broader range of sources and discussing the relevant theories, concepts, and findings related to the stability of gas extraction roadways in coal mining. This would strengthen the overall quality and impact of the research.
Issue 5.
What are the limitations of the study or research being discussed?
Issue 6.
It would be beneficial for the authors to provide a more detailed explanation in the paper of why it is important to conduct this study. Specifically, they should discuss the potential implications of their findings and how they contribute to the broader understanding of the safe co-mining of coal and gas. Additionally, they could address any gaps or limitations in the existing research that their study aims to fill. By providing a clear and compelling rationale for their research, the authors can help to establish the significance and relevance of their work to the field. This would improve the overall quality and impact of the research, and make it more meaningful and useful to readers.
Issue 7.
In case to add more information (literature review according to Issue 4) please consider the suggested research (comes from, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Poland) in your paper when enhancing the introduction section. I believe they are worth considering in your paper.
Krykovskyi, O.; Krykovska, V.; Skipochka, S. Interaction of rock-bolt supports while weak rock reinforcing by means of injection rock bolts. Min. Miner. Depos. 15, 2021, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining15.04.008
Matayev, A.; Abdiev, A.; Kydrashov, A.; Musin, A.; Khvatina, N.; Kaumetova, D. Research into technology of fastening the mine workings in the conditions of unstable masses. Min. Miner. Depos. 15, 2021, 78-86. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining15.03.078 Malkowski
Małkowski, P.; Niedbalski, Z.; Majcherczyk, T.; Bednarek, Ł. Underground monitoring as the best way of roadways support design validation in a long time period. Min. Miner. Depos. 15, 2020, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.33271/mining14.03.001
Issue 8.
Could you give a brief explanation of what future studies could entail?
Issue 9.
All figures (within the same titles) must be placed on the only one page. E.a. Figure 3,a-h must be placed on one page.
Issue 10.
References are presented not in MDPI format. Please correct it.
Issue 11.
Overall, I believe that the study conducted is of high quality, and I would recommend that the authors submit the paper for publication following a thorough revision. While some improvements are necessary, the research provides valuable insights into the safe co-mining of coal and gas, and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field. I commend the authors on their work thus far and look forward to seeing the final version of their paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have replied to your questions one by one. My reply is in the word file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting and inspring, with adequate simulated data at different F, L and a*b. I recommend publication after answering the following questions.
1.Why you choose these values of F, L and a*b? Are they the same with the real situations?
2.Is it possible to use less figures to addresss the conclusions? For example, draw (b),(d),(f),(h) of Figure 7 in a single figure.
3.In the reference, there is a number of 23 without reference.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have replied to your questions one by one. My reply is in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed paper deals with the analysis of the thickness and strength of prestressed pressure arc anchor in coal and gas mining.
Compared to the previous article [1], there is no adequate introduction, description of the scientific problem and a coherent line of scientific solution to the problem across the article.
The results in the chapters are presented without a broader context, and the authors only describe the data from the figures in the text in a brusque manner. As an example, Section 4.5.1 defacto begins with a table.
It is difficult to find any novelty and contribution in the article and the authors have resigned to define them in an exact way.
I consider the article to be a working version that needs to be refined appropriately to the requirements of the Sustainability journal and only then resubmitted for peer review.
[1] Wu, D.; Li, N.; Hu, M.; Liu, H. Study on Formation Mechanism of Pre-stressed Anchor Pressure Arch Based on Safe Co-Mining of Deep Coal and Gas. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043004
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have replied to your questions one by one. My reply is in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article contains interesting numerical research that concerns the use of a cable support in conditions of various initial tension. The obtained results of the research on the dependence of the support spacing, its length and initial tension for various lithologies have a practical dimension and can be useful at the design stage of the selection of the anchor cable support in various geological conditions for underground mining excavations. However, there are some questions and points in the manuscript need to be deliberated. The comments are as follows:
1. In the introduction, it should be mentioned that the cable support, due to its flexibility, perfectly adapts to bending and shear failure (doi.org/10.3390/app13031326) but also absorbs the dynamic load energy of moving rocks (doi.org/10.3390/app13010015);
2. The article should use a space between the number and the unit (lines: 60, 87-97, 108-109, 120, 125-126, 137, 142-143, 155, 161, 166-169, 173-176, 180- 181…………..);
3. Equations 3 and 4, use the same sign for Poisson's ratio (v);
4. Table 1, the following entry should be corrected: Poisson's ratio;
5. In the second chapter, it should be written how many samples have been tested in laboratory conditions for each series of rocks;
6. Line 86, correct the sentence: "situation.the";
7. In the third chapter, it should be written what stress criteria and strength, deformation and structural parameters have been adopted for individual layers of the rock mass and cable support;
8. The cable support is not visible in the second Figure - was it taken into account in numerical modeling;
9. At the beginning of the fourth chapter, it should be written what is the cause of the additional stresses;
10. In the subsection 4.1, it should be written whether the pre-tightening force values correspond to industrial conditions;
11. In the subsection 4.2 it should be written what should be the minimum length of the cable support above the pasting zone;
12. In the subsection 4.2, information should be added on the basis of which formulas are used to select the spacing of the cable support for deep roadway in Huainan and Huaibeimining area of Anhui Province;
13. In the fifth chapter, a table should be added with a summary of the results of numerical modeling and tests in industrial conditions so that the test results can be compared. In addition, please write what was the pre-tension, length and spacing of the cable support;
14. The conclusions should be slightly modified, first of all, some sentences are repeated in full: lines 449, 465. Moreover, one statement regarding the applicability of the thickness of compression arch in mine conditions should be included as a recommendation for the mining plant.
According to review.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have replied to your questions one by one. My reply is in the word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
I am more than satisfied with the corrections provided by you.
This study is an important contribution to sustainable mining.
Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, thank you for your suggestions on this article. Secondly, thank you very much for your approval of this article. I wish you have a great day.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not address my comments at all in the revised version of the article. The article continues to lack a definition of novelty and contribution.
I therefore stand by my original assessment - the article does not, in my opinion, meet the minimum requirements of Sustainability journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very sorry that the revised article last time did not meet your satisfaction. We sincerely apologize to you. We will respond to your questions one by one and hope you are satisfied,and welcome to criticize and correct the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
