Next Article in Journal
Fusing Ascending and Descending Time-Series SAR Images with Dual-Polarized Pixel Attention UNet for Landslide Recognition
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Extraction Method Comparison and Spatial-Temporal Pattern Evolution for the Built-Up Area of Hefei Based on Multi-Source Data Fusion
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Delineation of Backfill Mining Influence Range Based on Coal Mining Subsidence Principle and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

Remote Sens. 2023, 15(23), 5618; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15235618
by Yafei Yuan 1, Meinan Zheng 2,*, Huaizhan Li 1, Yu Chen 1, Guangli Guo 1, Zhe Su 1 and Wenqi Huo 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(23), 5618; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15235618
Submission received: 31 October 2023 / Revised: 27 November 2023 / Accepted: 2 December 2023 / Published: 4 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Remote Sensing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with an interesting topic on the delineation of the influence range of backfilling mining. In this paper, the backfilling working face in Shandong Province is taken as the object, and the SBAS-InSAR and leveling data are compared and analyzed. The accuracy of SBAS-InSAR monitoring the influence range of backfilling mining is improved by 39.8 %, which meets the requirements of accurate delineation of surface subsidence range of backfilling coal mining. Generally the paper is well written and is practical in this field. However, there are still some suggestions and questions. The paper needs minor revision.

(1)   Part of the text in Figure 1 is not clear, it is recommended to modify.

(2)   Why to choose SBAS-InSAR technology in this paper needs to be explained in the introduction.

(3)   In Figure 2, C9 and C10 are not clear and need to be modified.

(4)   The formulas in the paper need to be processed by the formula editor, not directly inserted by Word.

(5)   Figure 4 is not clear enough, you need to modify the next.

(6)   There are some grammatical errors and unsmooth sentences in the paper. It is suggested to revise them.

(7)   Figure 10 is not clear enough, you need to modify the next.

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

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is now acceptable but still I think you can improve it by reducing the sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Just after receiving the review request, I quickly went through the whole manuscript entitled “Delineation Method and Application of Backfill Mining influence Range Based on Fusion of Coal Mining Subsidence Principle and InSAR Monitoring” by Yuan et.al. The authors present a data analysis, that I prefer to call, to prove the improved accuracy of vertical deformation with a 3D decomposition from single track. Honestly, I failed finding the novelty behind. But I am pleased to give some comments to help the authors to improve this manuscript.

Please find the comments below.

 

Comments:

Figures

Fig.1. You guys missed the conversion process from SBAS to single reference before filtering.

Fig.2. I don’t think this figure shoule be kept. It is quite common in many papers.

Fig.4. Is this baseline plot required? You only mentioned it for almost five words. Please deleted it. It cannot provide any information to readers.

Fig.5. Is this velocity map generated by SBAS interferograms after Goldstein filter? You can apply a spectral filter for all interferograms before select elite pixels. That is ok for SBAS.

Fig.6. Please merge Fig.3 and Fig.6.

Fig.7&9. Merge these two figures.

Fig.8. Please take a look at the scale unit. Did that label in Chinese? Also please label the unit for colorbar.

 

Texts

#88 orbit-raising -> ascending

#fig.1 track angle? Should be heading angle?

#215 proportional -> linear

#262 fine orbit -> precise orbit

#317 attain? Please change it.

#371 lessen -> reduce

There are many grammartic errors still. This paper still needs to undergo a proof-reading stage.

 

Methods and Results

The authors just performed GAMMA and StaMPS for those 93 S1 images. The whole data processing progress still lacks some key steps, i.e, Goldstein filter after differencing. I am curious about the role of triangulation network. In StaMPS, phase unwrapping is performed by SNAPHU. If you used triangulation, it should be 2D without snaphu. That is iterative least squares method. I would not recommend this method because the least squares violates the required sparsity of phase unwrapping. I recommened sparse minimum cost flow method. It works better than least squares.

The accuracy improvement you claimed is all due to the existence of horizontal ground motion. If you exclude them, the left vertical displacement can be more accurate. I think it cannot be your novelty because it is a common knowledge.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It needs an extense modification. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting. Although the study is application of remote sensing data for monitoring the earth surface deformation, but it is complete. The deformation obtained from remote sensing technique is compared with field observations. I have the following concerns

1.       The topic doesn’t represent what you have done. You can make it shorter and simpler.

2.       The writing is not standard. For instance, in line 66 shouldn’t the word elevate be elevation?

3.       Figure 4: in x-axis (mmmyy)???

 

Once the writing is well taken care of, it should be publishable.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English must be improved

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented reliable research on determining the extent of mining impacts on the land surface using the SBAS-InSAR method. The publication presents a transparent and detailed approach to the issue of LOS displacement decomposition, and additionally uses mining subsidence law to determine horizontal displacements.

The main focus is on the literature review and references to other non-Chinese publications.

figures to better analyze and understand presented resultsAn article submitted to an international journal should contain various literature items. The topic of the application of satellite radar interferometry discussed by the authors is of interest to many research centers around the world, and not only to Chinese researchers. Additionally, the issues of surface protection of mining areas are also developing very dynamically in other countries, including Europe, North America and Asia. In view of the above arguments, please supplement the review of the literature and cited sources with works from outside China.

Backfilling mining has been well known for decades (1970s and earlier), especially in Europe. Therefore, I would like to ask you to also point to European studies.

Line 54 – Please read other (non-Chinese) publications, e.g. by Janusz Rusek, who uses neural networks and other machine learning methods to assess damage to buildings in mining areas.

Lines 214-219 Please also read paper of Witkowski et al., 2021 https://doi.org/10.3390/min11070788

Line 220 T means tilt or slope, more of horizontal coefficient in paper https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106939

More accurate description of exploitation C9 and C10 coal longwall is required  (depth, size, height of exploitation, type of backfilling)

Fig. 8 Please add the advance of working face to every sub-figures to better analyze and understand presented results. Please add also description what direction (west, east) exactly means “+” and “-“ signs for horizontal displacements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nice to see your revision. It is ok for me to suggest its publication though I have some other comments. Please forgive me for being picky as a reviewer.

I strongly suggested the authors to use the preivous title.

Also please delete the triangulation in Fig.1. It is kind of misleading.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is publishable 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It looks okay.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your comprehensive answers to your questions and comments. I consider the explanations obtained to be sufficient.

I accept the article in its current form and recommend it for publication.

Back to TopTop