A Case Study on Ground Subsidence and Backfill Deformation Induced by Multi-Stage Filling Mining in a Steeply Inclined Ore Body
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript title: A case study on ground subsidence and backfill deformation 2 induced by multi-stage filling mining in a steeply inclined ore body
Summary: In this manuscript titled ‘A case study on ground subsidence and backfill deformation induced by multi-stage filling mining in a steeply inclined ore body’, Li et al applied field monitoring and numerical simulation to investigate surface deformation processes induced by multi-stage fill mining operations in the Jinchuan mine, China.
General comment
· The manuscript is poorly written (significant grammatical errors – needs (English) editing) and organized (critical sections such as ‘(Data and) Methods’ are missing). For example, section 3 explains the datasets used (field measurements), methods, results, all folded into one, and statements that belong to the discussion section.
· The lengthy introduction section focused on providing elaborate explanations (literature review) on surface subsidence processes resulting from backfill mining but failed to mention the approaches and methods employed in previous studies to investigate the problem.
· The abstract does not reflect the overall findings of the study.
Specific comment
· The abstract could be written with better clarity (see the attached document). For example, the statement in lines 25 – 27 (“the backfill mainly shrinks inward in the horizontal direction, and the deformation is mainly manifested as internal uplift and external subsidence in the vertical direction”) is not clear. Similarly, the sentence in lines 27 – 30 is convoluted and could be better stated/clarified by breaking it up into multiple sentences (several instances of the same issue in the manuscript (see the attached document).
· I suggest renaming section 2 as ‘The study area’
· Figure 1: adding an inset showing the location of the study area (in regard to a map of china) would be helpful.
· What’s the reason behind the generation of contour maps for the interval 2005 – 2010 (5-year interval) but not for 2010 – 2015 and 2015 – 2020?
· Line 113: though commonly the term GPS (it should have been expanded to’ Global Positioning System (GPS) when mentioned for the first time) is widely used to refer to satellite-based navigation and positioning systems, it is inaccurate to fold all the other systems that also providing positioning. I suggest you change it to ‘Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)’ - the more inclusive/general terminology for all the satellite-based systems currently providing positioning.
· Line 113: what kind of (GPS) equipment was used (mapping grade/survey grade)? what’s the accuracy and precision (this is important as the overall deformation values described in the study are fairly small and can lie within the margins of error)? What procedures were applied to correct the various sources of error on the GPS/GNSS data?
· Lines 169 – 172: is there any data to support the assessment?
· What do figures 5a – d signify? (not described in the text)
· Figure 5: what does F17 refer to?
· Line 211, 217: is there a time frame when the excavation activities were implemented so that the results shown in Figures 3 and 6 could be reconciled with the activities? (would also help to comprehend the explanations provided in the discussion section).
· ‘Hanging wall’, ‘footwall’, etc. geometries of the ore body are mentioned several times. It would be helpful if shown in Figure 1/2.
· Figure 9: why not show the relationship between the two variables instead of the difference? I believe it would make sense to show the accuracy of the adopted methodologies by comparing the results against one another (and as can be seen in Table 2, the correlation coefficient would not be 0.99). This helps to assess potential sources of error in the two methodologies.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The method and results are generally described well. The geotechnical conditions of the site and the numerical analyses input is also described well. Proposed improvements: In the introduction section the purpose of the present paper should be stated, as well as the methodology to achieve it. In the conclusions section the numerical analyses accuracy should be discussed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I carefully read the manuscript remotesensing-1832229, untitled “A case study on ground subsidence and backfill deformation induced by multi-stage filling mining in a steeply inclined ore body''. This manuscript made a comprehensive study on the subsidence characteristics of ground surface and backfill induced by the typical multi-stage filling mining mine, with the growth of mining depth and scale, using GPS measurement and numerical simulations. The structure and contents of this manuscript are in well organized and written, the analysis is detailed, and the conclusions are supported. In the following I provide few suggestions for this manuscript.
1. Figure 3: Please mark the locations of GPS on figure.
Please provide more detailed information about figure 3 in the caption.
2. Lines 124, 130: please define the meaning of these digits “42-12”, “42-15” and “42-16”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
