Breakage Patterns of High-Level Thick Weakly Cemented Overburden for Coal Safe and Sustainable Mining

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the practical problem of mining earthquakes easily caused by deep mining of high-level thick weak cemented overburden. Taking Yingpanhao Coal Mine in China as the research object, the mechanical calculation model of breakage of high-level thick weak cemented overburden is established and breakage patterns and rules of high-level thick weak cemented overburden are studied, which has practical significance for the understanding and prevention of regional mining earthquakes. But there are still some problems in the paper. Suggest a minor revision of this paper.

1)   The references in the introduction are basically from Chinese scholars. An article submitted to an international journal of 《Sustainability》should contain various literature items. In view of the above arguments, please supplement the review of the literature and cited sources with works from outside China.

2)   Line 41-42, there are too many references cited in the same place, and it is recommended to modify it to ensure that no more than 5 references are cited in one place.

3)   Line 174-179, there are many letters significantly larger than the text. It is recommended to fix this typography problem.

4)   line 186-189, there are many letters significantly larger than the text. It is recommended to fix this typography problem.

5)   Figure 4 is not clear enough and it is recommended to modify it to meet the requirements of the paper publication.

6)   Figure 6 is not clear enough and it is recommended to modify it to meet the requirements of the paper publication.

7)   Please explain how to make a comparative analysis between the measured data in Section 4 and the theoretical analysis in Section 3 to support each other?

8)   The reliability of the measured data is directly related to the analysis conclusion. Then the paper should explain in detail the monitoring method, the instrument used and the corresponding accuracy.

        9) The conclusions need to be streamlined to better reflect the academic innovation of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate your positive feedback on the clarity and organization of the paper "Breakage Patterns of High-Level Thick Weak Cemented Overburden for Coal Safe and Sustainable Mining" (sustainability-3007641). Your comments have been invaluable in improving its quality. The comments are also of significant importance to guide our research. After carefully studying the comments, we have made the modifications and hope they meet your approval and requirements. Some revised portions are marked in red on the manuscript. The main corrections and responses are as follows:

Reviewer #1:

Comments 1: This paper focuses on the practical problem of mining earthquakes easily caused by deep mining of high-level thick weak cemented overburden. Taking Yingpanhao Coal Mine in China as the research object, the mechanical calculation model of breakage of high-level thick weak cemented overburden is established and breakage patterns and rules of high-level thick weak cemented overburden are studied, which has practical significance for the understanding and prevention of regional mining earthquakes. But there are still some problems in the paper. Suggest a minor revision of this paper.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition of the innovation of our manuscript. Thank you for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper.

Comments 2: The references in the introduction are basically from Chinese scholars. An article submitted to an international journal of 《Sustainability》should contain various literature items. In view of the above arguments, please supplement the review of the literature and cited sources with works from outside China.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for our incomplete citations. Your opinion is very good, “Sustainability” is an international journal, should be a comprehensive reference to the relevant international literature. The review of the literature and cited sources with works from outside China has been added to the paper and marked in red. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 3: Line 41-42, there are too many references cited in the same place, and it is recommended to modify it to ensure that no more than 5 references are cited in one place.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for our improper reference. In this paper, the improper references at Line 41-42 have been modified and the full text has been checked to ensure that there are no more than 5 references in a local application. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 4: Line 174-179, there are many letters significantly larger than the text. It is recommended to fix this typography problem.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the typesetting problem. The font size at Line 174-179 has been modified and the full text has been checked. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 5: Line 186-189, there are many letters significantly larger than the text. It is recommended to fix this typography problem.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the typesetting problem. The font size at Line 186-189 has been modified and the full text has been checked. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 6: Figure 4 is not clear enough and it is recommended to modify it to meet the requirements of the paper publication.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the lack of clarity in Figure 4. Figure 4 has been modified in the paper.We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 7: Figure 6 is not clear enough and it is recommended to modify it to meet the requirements of the paper publication.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the lack of clarity in Figure 6. Figure 6 has been modified in the paper. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 8: Please explain how to make a comparative analysis between the measured data in Section 4 and the theoretical analysis in Section 3 to support each other?

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. With the increase of the advancing length of the working face, the overlying strata will move and break, and transfer upward, resulting in deformation and fracture of the extremely thick weakly cemented strata and surface subsidence. Therefore, the deformation and fracture of extremely thick weakly cemented overburden can be reflected by surface subsidence and microseismic monitoring results. In the third section, we reveal the failure mode and breaking distance of overlying strata with thick and weak cementation by theoretical method. In the fourth section, we obtained the relationship between the advancing distance of the working face and the surface subsidence and the large energy event through the measured data. In this way, we carry out theoretical analysis and mutual verification of measured data according to the relationship between working face advancing distance, breaking distance of thick and weak cemented overburden, surface subsidence and energy time. Through comparative analysis, we get :

(1) When the 2202 working face advances to 567m, it marks the peak surface sub-sidence rate observed during the monitoring period. At this point, the surface subsidence values for observation line C and observation line E have increased by 312 mm and 475 mm, respectively, compared to the previous period. As the working face progresses from 551m to 682m, there are frequent occurrences of large-energy events. It is close to the results in Table 1 that the theoretically calculated workface advance distances of 510m, 590m and 650m for the rock strata with tensile failure at the inclined side and the middle, and shear failure at the middle of the strike side.

(2) When the 2202 working face advanced from 1008m to 1073m, the surface sub-sidence increased by 52mm for observation line C, 33mm for observation line E, and 140mm for observation line B1. During the mining process from 879m to 1049m, frequent large-energy events occurred, often exceeding 106 J multiple times. This is closely aligned with the theoretical calculation results indicating tensile failure of the rock layer at the strike edge for a mining distance of 970m, as shown in Table 1.

Comments 9: The reliability of the measured data is directly related to the analysis conclusion. Then the paper should explain in detail the monitoring method, the instrument used and the corresponding accuracy.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the lack of rigor in writing the paper. We supplemented the monitoring methods, the use of measurement tools and accuracy data in the article. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 10: The conclusions need to be streamlined to better reflect the academic innovation

Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestions. Your opinion is very good. We modified the conclusions of the paper in order to better reflect the academic innovation of the paper. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-3007641-review

Breakage Patterns of High-Level Thick Weak Cemented Overburden for Coal Safe and Sustainable Mining

This paper took 2201 and 2202 working faces of Yingpanchuan Coal Mine as the research object, established the mechanical calculation model of breakage of high level giant-thickness weakly cemented overburden, and used the method of medium-thickness plate and short-beam function to solve the breakage law of high-level giant-thickness weakly cemented overburden rock. This is an interesting and valuable topic. However, there are still some key issues that require further explanation and clarification, as follow:

1. Line 17, Yingpanchuan Coal Mine or Yingpanhao Coal Mine; line 29 mine earthquake or mining earthquake; English language needs further inspection and polishing.

2. Line 41~42, Please avoid citing multiple consecutive references at the same time, as this can cause confusion for readers. Only the most critical 2~3 references need to be retained.

3. Lack of a specific location map for the research area.

4. Figures 2 and 3 is difficult to understand clearly, please further optimize it.

5. Supplement the detailed engineering and hydrogeological conditions of the research area.

6. There is actually a Chinese annotation in Figure 6, please modify it.

7. All the drawings are not standardized and clear, and need to be modified.

8. The conclusion section is too long and needs to be further summarized and condensed.

9. Further discussion of the research results is needed from a mechanistic perspective.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate your positive feedback on the clarity and organization of the paper "Breakage Patterns of High-Level Thick Weak Cemented Overburden for Coal Safe and Sustainable Mining" (sustainability-3007641). Your comments have been invaluable in improving its quality. The comments are also of significant importance to guide our research. After carefully studying the comments, we have made the modifications and hope they meet your approval and requirements. Some revised portions are marked in red on the manuscript. The main corrections and responses are as follows:

Reviewer #2

Comments 1: This paper took 2201 and 2202 working faces of Yingpanchuan Coal Mine as the research object, established the mechanical calculation model of breakage of high level giant-thickness weakly cemented overburden, and used the method of medium-thickness plate and short-beam function to solve the breakage law of high-level giant-thickness weakly cemented overburden rock. This is an interesting and valuable topic. However, there are still some key issues that require further explanation and clarification, as follow:

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition of the innovation of our manuscript. Thank you for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper.

Comments 2: Line 17, Yingpanchuan Coal Mine or Yingpanhao Coal Mine; line 29 mine earthquake or mining earthquake; English language needs further inspection and polishing.

Response 2: Thank you for your precise suggestions. In the paper, "Yingpanchuan Coal Mine" has been modified to "Yingpanhao Coal Mine". Unified use of "mine earthquakes" to represent earthquakes caused by mining. And, we have found experts whose mother tongue is English in the related fields of the paper to modify and improve the language. The following is the proof of polishing. We hope our modification will meet your requirements.

Comments 3: Line 41~42, Please avoid citing multiple consecutive references at the same time, as this can cause confusion for readers. Only the most critical 2~3 references need to be retained.

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for improper citation. We modified the references cited by Line 41 ~ 42, deleted the papers repeatedly cited, and checked and modified the full text. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 4: Lack of a specific location map for the research area.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We modified Figure 1 to add a specific location map of the study area. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 5: Figures 2 and 3 is difficult to understand clearly, please further optimize it.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We improved Figures 2 and 3 so that readers can understand the information in the picture more accurately. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction. 

Comments 6: Supplement the detailed engineering and hydrogeological conditions of the research area.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We supplement the detailed engineering and hydrogeological conditions of the study area in Section 2.1. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 7: There is actually a Chinese annotation in Figure 6, please modify it.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for our carelessness. Figure 6 has been modified in this paper. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 8: All the drawings are not standardized and clear and need to be modified.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We checked all the pictures in the paper and modified the pictures according to the sustainability requirements to improve the standardization and clarity of the pictures. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 9: The conclusion section is too long and needs to be further summarized and condensed.

Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestions. Your opinion is very good. We modify and polish the conclusion part to make it more concise and intuitive, and improve the innovative expression and readability of the conclusion. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 10: Further discussion of the research results is needed from a mechanistic perspective.

Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have modified and improved the third section, the fourth section and the conclusion of the paper, and supplemented the analysis and discussion of the research results from the perspective of mechanism. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article relates to the field of improving the safety of mining operations. The study analyzes the destruction of a massive, thick, weakly cohesive rock layer that can cause a strong mountain earthquake and threaten safe coal mining. The authors of the study performed a mechanical calculation of the failure model of a thick, weakly bonded overlay rock layer, taking into account various failure modes. The results of the study show that certain types of work carried out during the coal mining process have the greatest impact on the structure of the seam. The authors identified microseismic processes that cause certain types of work. Regarding the conclusions obtained by the authors, it is worth making a remark that they do not align with the stated objectives. The authors outline the objectives in lines 79-88. In particular, analysis of monitoring data. An analysis is carried out in the work, but in the conclusion it is not indicated as a separate point. Also, the presentation of graphic material leaves much to be desired.

 

Notes. 

1. Reconcile the research objectives and the results obtained. 

2. Variables are not described in the formulas. 

3. Many of the drawings in the work are difficult to read. It is necessary to increase their size and quality.   In figure 6, the dimensions along the axes are not distinguishable.   I recommend breaking them down into separate drawings. 

4. Neither in Figure 6 the yellow section along the x axis needs explanation. 

5. Commas are missing in lines 85, 109, 215.

6. Many numbers and dimensions are stuck together without a space. For example, in lines 261, 162, 263, 278, 279, 283, etc. "of 220m," 

7. Table 2: Reduce the size of the columns.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We appreciate your positive feedback on the clarity and organization of the paper "Breakage Patterns of High-Level Thick Weak Cemented Overburden for Coal Safe and Sustainable Mining" (sustainability-3007641). Your comments have been invaluable in improving its quality. The comments are also of significant importance to guide our research. After carefully studying the comments, we have made the modifications and hope they meet your approval and requirements. Some revised portions are marked in red on the manuscript. The main corrections and responses are as follows:

Reviewer #3

Comments 1: The article relates to the field of improving the safety of mining operations. The study analyzes the destruction of a massive, thick, weakly cohesive rock layer that can cause a strong mountain earthquake and threaten safe coal mining. The authors of the study performed a mechanical calculation of the failure model of a thick, weakly bonded overlay rock layer, taking into account various failure modes. The results of the study show that certain types of work carried out during the coal mining process have the greatest impact on the structure of the seam. The authors identified microseismic processes that cause certain types of work. Regarding the conclusions obtained by the authors, it is worth making a remark that they do not align with the stated objectives. The authors outline the objectives in lines 79-88. In particular, analysis of monitoring data. An analysis is carried out in the work, but in the conclusion it is not indicated as a separate point. Also, the presentation of graphic material leaves much to be desired.

Response 1: Thank you for your recognition of the innovation of our manuscript. Thank you for your valuable comments on the revision and improvement of our paper. We have revised the full manuscript carefully according to your comments.

Comments 2: Reconcile the research objectives and the results obtained.

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the misunderstanding caused by improper words. We check and modify the abstract, introduction and conclusion of the paper, so that the research objectives and results in the full paper are consistent. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 3: Variables are not described in the formulas. 

Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for carelessness. We add the definition of the relevant variables under the formula, so that the reader can clarify the specific meaning of the relevant variables. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 4: Many of the drawings in the work are difficult to read. It is necessary to increase their size and quality.  In figure 6, the dimensions along the axes are not distinguishable.   I recommend breaking them down into separate drawings. 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We apologize for the substandard picture quality in the paper. We checked and modified all the pictures so that readers can understand the information in the pictures more accurately. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 5: Neither in Figure 6 the yellow section along the x axis needs explanation. 

Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We add the specific meaning of the yellow part of Figure 6 in the paper. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 6: Commas are missing in lines 85, 109, 215.

Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are sorry for our carelessness. Punctuations have been added to lines 85,109,215 to avoid ambiguity in the reading process. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 7: Many numbers and dimensions are stuck together without a space. For example, in lines 261, 162, 263, 278, 279, 283, etc. "of 220m," .

Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We are sorry for our carelessness. Spaces have been added between units and numbers. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Comments 8: Table 2: Reduce the size of the columns.

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We modified the column length of Table 2 to improve the aesthetics of the table. We greatly appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that our revisions meet your satisfaction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form