Study on the Effect of Ore-Drawing Shear Factor on Underground Debris Flow in the Block Caving Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The article contains interesting experimental test in relation to the mass mining metods. The obtained shear stress and shear rate of three samples with different moisture contents are interesting and seem to reflect industrial conditions. Overall, the article presented has left a favorable impression, and with the incorporation of the suggested revisions and considerations put forth, it is recommended for publication in the "Water" journal. Below are some comments and suggestions:
1. In the introduction, two/three sentences should be added regarding the use of numerical methods in the assessment of ore drawing in a caving method;
2. In the second chapter, a short description should be added regarding the length of blast holes and operational losses in the presented ore deposit exploitation system;
3. In the subsection 3.1, it should be written what was the geometry of the models and in what scale the models were made compared to real conditions;
4. In the subsection 3.3, it should be added the formulas on the basis of which the viscosity and shear stress values were determined - these are quite important data that translate into the evaluation of results;
5. Statistical analysis of three samples is quite a simplification – it should be justified;
6. In the fourth chapter, several references should be added in which the effect of ore drawing shear on downhole debris flow was studied, so that the research results constitute a form of discussion of the results;
7. I propose to combine chapter five with chapter four, then they will constitute one well-developed chapter;
8. In the conclusions section, it should be added numerical values obtained from experimental studies, in particular regarding viscosity and shear stress for various values of moisture contents;
9. The last chapter is consistent and sufficient.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
The article contains interesting experimental test in relation to the mass mining metods. The obtained shear stress and shear rate of three samples with different moisture contents are interesting and seem to reflect industrial conditions. Overall, the article presented has left a favorable impression, and with the incorporation of the suggested revisions and considerations put forth, it is recommended for publication in the "Water" journal. Below are some comments and suggestions:
Point 1: In the introduction, two/three sentences should be added regarding the use of numerical methods in the assessment of ore drawing in a caving method;
Response 1: In the introduction, the authors add how numerical methods are used and what numerical software is used to study debris flows. See “1. Introduction” for details on the blue label font content.
Point 2: In the second chapter, a short description should be added regarding the length of blast holes and operational losses in the presented ore deposit exploitation system;
Response 2: In the second chapter, the author adds a brief description of the length of the blast hole and the loss of operation of the existing deposit mining system. See Chapter 2 for details on the blue font notation. Namely: in the mining system of this mine, the blasting method is one-shot blasting with medium-length hole, the depth of the hole is 8m-12m. The ore loss rate of the mining method is 15% -30% .
Point 3: In the subsection 3.1, it should be written what was the geometry of the models and in what scale the models were made compared to real conditions;
Response 3: The author's reply is as follows: according to the actual size of the mine site, the author uses a 1:100 similarity ratio to simulate the formation process of moraine in the caving ore bed.
Point 4: In the subsection 3.3, it should be added the formulas on the basis of which the viscosity and shear stress values were determined - these are quite important data that translate into the evaluation of results;
Response 4: In section 3.3, the fitting formulas for the values of viscosity and shear stress are shown in figure 10 and table 4.
Point 5: Statistical analysis of three samples is quite a simplification – it should be justified;
Response 5: The author's reply is as follows: although the statistical analysis of the three samples is relatively simple, but from the results of the trial analysis can be seen that the results of the three samples are consistent, the results obtained are reasonable and reliable.
Point 6: In the fourth chapter, several references should be added in which the effect of ore drawing shear on downhole debris flow was studied, so that the research results constitute a form of discussion of the results;
Response 6: The author's reply is as follows: At present, the research on the effect of drawing shear on the downhole debris flow is almost blank. Although a few scholars mentioned the influence of ore-drawing factors, but at present scholars have not carried out in-depth study. Therefore, the author does not cite references in chapter 4.
Point 7: I propose to combine chapter five with chapter four, then they will constitute one well-developed chapter;
Response 7: The author's reply is as follows: since there are 7 chapters in this manuscript, and there are many chapters, the author agrees with the reviewer's opinion. The author has combined Chapter 5 and Chapter 4 to form a more perfect chapter.
Point 8: In the conclusions section, it should be added numerical values obtained from experimental studies, in particular regarding viscosity and shear stress for various values of moisture contents;
Response 8: The relationship between the viscosity and shear stress of debris flow samples with different humidity values has been added in the section “5.Conclusions”.
Point 9: The last chapter is consistent and sufficient.
Response 9: The author agrees with the reviewer that the last chapter is consistent and adequate.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-07
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The revision is fine.
Author Response
The author has carried on the careful revision according to the reviewer 2's suggestion, the revised content has also obtained the reviewer 2's approval.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This study analyzes the generation mechanism of downhole debris flow based on the perspective of ore drawing shear factor, and suggests corresponding control countermeasures, which has some research value in the background sense. However, on the whole, the paper has less research on the shear effect, and the research content is difficult to reflect the research theme, which is recommended to increase the research on the shear effect of ore drawing. In addition, there are several deficiencies in the paper, which are suggested to be modified.
1. Avoid ambiguous words such as "first" in the abstract.
2. It is recommended that an overview of the study be added to the introduction to provide a general description of the research idea.
3. The reference to "at least 7 of the 10 downhole debris flow accidents occurred under the influence of drawing shear without the influence of blasting vibration." in line 142-145, how can it be determined that it is a shearing effect and not a mining effect?
4. How is the content of section IV reflected? At present it seems to be only personal reasoning. It is suggested to supplement the relevant tests by controlling variables (water content, ore release disturbance, etc.) and establishing control tests to reflect the effect of shear.
5. In addition, please explain how shear affects the production of downhole debris flow unilaterally. Can not be the author's personal imagination. This can be explained through the downhole debris flow generation mechanism, mechanical modeling, and other aspects.
6. In the study, it is only macroscopically stated that shear is a condition that affects the generation of downhole debris flow, but the mechanism of action of shear is not stated clearly.
7. Does the statement "the interaction force between particles is not considered in this paper, and the impact of the shear force of ore drawing on the downhole debris flow" in "7.2 Limitations" overrule the content of the study?
Some languages need to be modified.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: Avoid ambiguous words such as "first" in the abstract.
Response 1: The author has removed “first” from “abstract,” as detailed in the blue-colored font in “abstract”.
Point 2: It is recommended that an overview of the study be added to the introduction to provide a general description of the research idea.
Response 2: The author has refined a brief overview of the current research in the introduction. See the blue notes in “1. Introduction” for details.
Point 3: The reference to "at least 7 of the 10 downhole debris flow accidents occurred under the influence of drawing shear without the influence of blasting vibration." in line 142-145, how can it be determined that it is a shearing effect and not a mining effect?
Response 3: The author's reply is as follows: in the 10 downhole mud-rock flow accidents, at least 7 occurred under the action of tension and shear, without the influence of blasting vibration. The main reason for making such a judgment is that the mine carries out a lot of prevention and control activities at night, while blasting activities at night are less.
Point 4: How is the content of section IV reflected? At present it seems to be only personal reasoning. It is suggested to supplement the relevant tests by controlling variables (water content, ore release disturbance, etc.) and establishing control tests to reflect the effect of shear.
Response 4: The author's response is as follows: the author took into account the impact of multiple factors in the course of conducting the trial. For example: in the debris flow slurry “Thixotropy test” process, to maintain the “Shear rate” under certain conditions.
Point 5: In addition, please explain how shear affects the production of downhole debris flow unilaterally. Can not be the author's personal imagination. This can be explained through the downhole debris flow generation mechanism, mechanical modeling, and other aspects.
Response 5: The author's response is as follows: The shear force produced by The flow of ore particles first produces shear action on The paste in The shear boundary region of The ore drawing, decreasing The slurry viscosity while enhancing The fluidity. Thus, the slurry is activated and becomes a flowable paste that flows with the bulk ore flowing through the ore mouth. The continuous ore drawing process continuously shears The new moraine slurry in The ore drawing channel, which is continuously shear-activated and continuously discharged. Finally, a certain scale and destructive downhole debris flow accident is formed. According to the structural characteristics of downhole debris flow slurry, the author obtained the rheological and thixotropy properties of debris flow slurry through relevant experiments. On this basis, the influence of tensile shear on the formation mechanism of downhole debris flow is analyzed.
Point 6: In the study, it is only macroscopically stated that shear is a condition that affects the generation of downhole debris flow, but the mechanism of action of shear is not stated clearly.
Response 6: In chapter 4.1.Effect of ore drawing shear on downhole debris flow, the author also explains the mechanism of Effect of ore drawing shear on downhole debris flow. See the blue font for details.
Point 7: Does the statement "the interaction force between particles is not considered in this paper, and the impact of the shear force of ore drawing on the downhole debris flow" in "7.2 Limitations" overrule the content of the study?
Response 7: In “7.2 limit”, the author does not consider the interaction force between particles because of the limitation of current monitoring technology. The effect of the shear force of orebody on the downhole debris flow is the macroscopic expression of the research content, and it will not overturn the research content of this paper.
Point 8: Some languages need to be modified.
Response 8: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-07
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
WWe dont agree with the term "Natural Caving" from the title, please explain better or change into "sublevel caving" o the appropriate technique
line 33: please add a very short description of the method (2 lines) and some references
Authors must include references from the most important caving mines in the world, specially Chile and Australia, and the very first ones to operate
Figure 1: A regional map is missing
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: We don’t agree with the term "Natural Caving" from the title, please explain better or change into "sublevel caving" o the appropriate technique.
Response 1: The author's response is as follows: the author strongly agrees with the reviewer's recommendation that the title “Natural Caving” be amended to read “Sublevel Caving”.
Point 2: line 33: please add a very short description of the method (2 lines) and some references.
Response 2: The author's response is as follows: for the 33-line explanatory question, the author adds some references to support it.
Point 3: Authors must include references from the most important caving mines in the world, specially Chile and Australia, and the very first ones to operate.
Response 3: The author's response is as follows: Based on the comments of the reviewers, the author adds that the most important mining mines in the world, especially Chile and Australia, are indicated in blue lettering on lines 110-117 respectively.
Point 4: Figure 1: A regional map is missing.
Response 4: The author's response is as follows: the author adds a regional map of the mining area to Figure 1, based on comments made by the reviewers.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-07
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
This manuscript establishes a lab scale testing model to simulate the influence of the ore drawing shear factor on the downhole debris flow in a block caving mine. Authors collected various samples of slurry from the site and found the debris slurry is the thixotropic fluid. However, there is very limited further study after rheological properties investigation to evaluate the downhole debris flow. Instead, there is only a short section in Chapter 4 talking about the lab scale testing without discussing any scientific findings. Have authors monitored any parameters during the lab scale testing? How did authors use the lab data to aid you in improving the field practice? It seems the main evaluation work on the debris flow has not been done properly. As such, the proposed prevention measures has no scientific base and that section has no link with the previous sections. Therefore, the quality of this paper is not good enough for publish.
Too many grammar errors and many sentences cannot be fully understood. Should natural caving be replaced by block caving?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
The mine debris flow is induced by the change of the original topographic and geological conditions caused by man-made mining behavior. Its mechanism is essentially different from natural surface landslide and debris flow, tunnel debris flow and other geological disasters. Therefore, the study of underground debris flow disaster belongs to a brand-new research field of debris flow. Compared with the surface natural debris flow, the underground debris flow is often more sudden, hidden and strong destructive characteristics. The underground debris flow is hidden and invisible because it occurs underground. Due to the limitation of current underground monitoring and detection technology, and the absence of prior warning information when it occurs, it has the characteristics of burst. Because the downhole debris flow mainly occurs in the confined space, even the small-scale debris flow may cause serious disasters, making it more destructive. Therefore, compared with surface open-pit mine debris flow, the formation mechanism of underground mine debris flow is more complex, therefore, the research on the mechanism and prevention and control of underground debris flow disaster is still in a blank state. At present, there are few research results on underground debris flow, especially the study on ore drawing shear factor, so there is no any research results for reference. Therefore, the reviewer thinks that it is very limited for the author to study the downhole debris flow through the rheological properties.
In chapter 4, based on the analysis of the structure characteristics of the slurry, the influence of the shear factor on the formation mechanism of the underground debris flow is analyzed from the angle of the rheology and thixotropy of the slurry. The research in this field and the obtained results can increase the researchers' understanding and prevention of downhole debris flow. The author believes that it has certain theoretical and practical significance.
In addition, the author puts forward the preventive measures mainly around the ore drawing shear factor, which is based on the influence mechanism of the ore drawing shear factor on the underground debris flow.
Moreover, According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-07
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)
In this manuscript, the effect of ore drawing shear factor on a downhole debris flow is investigated. The overall structure of the manuscript is good, but there are still the following problems that need to be solved before being accepted:
1. The field data monitoring process and the laboratory test process need to be described in detail, including parameter setting and data acquisition.
2. The conclusions need to be more quantified.
English language needs further modification, for example: "Samples 1, 2 and 3".
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 6 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
In this manuscript, the effect of ore drawing shear factor on a downhole debris flow is investigated. The overall structure of the manuscript is good, but there are still the following problems that need to be solved before being accepted:
Point 1: The field data monitoring process and the laboratory test process need to be described in detail, including parameter setting and data acquisition.
Response 1: In response to this question, the author makes the following reply. Because the “X-ray diffraction analysis”, “Rheology test” and “Thixotropy test” of debris flow slurry in this paper belong to routine test, they all have their own operating rules and standard methods. For brevity of the paper, the operational steps for routine trials were not reflected in the paper, but the authors supplemented the references for their respective trials, as detailed in [23-25] . Other researchers can replicate or validate the study based on references provided by the authors.
Point 2: The conclusions need to be more quantified.
Response 2: The author's reply is as follows: the author has quantified conclusion (2) , while conclusions (1) and (3) are qualitative conclusions.
Point 3: English language needs further modification, for example: "Samples 1, 2 and 3".
Response 3: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-07
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The existing research on the mechanism of downhole debris flow does not consider shear factors. In the experiment, this study only explained that shear action can cause downhole debris flow, and did not indicate whether the mining pressure has an impact. If the author cannot explain the reason, he is more inclined to the downhole debris flow caused by the hydraulic action of the softened loose particles above due to the occurrence of rock pressure. Please use experimental or mechanical models to exclude the influence of rock pressure manifestation, in order to explain that downhole debris flow only occurs under the influence of shear factors.
Better
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: The existing research on the mechanism of downhole debris flow does not consider shear factors. In the experiment, this study only explained that shear action can cause downhole debris flow, and did not indicate whether the mining pressure has an impact. If the author cannot explain the reason, he is more inclined to the downhole debris flow caused by the hydraulic action of the softened loose particles above due to the occurrence of rock pressure. Please use experimental or mechanical models to exclude the influence of rock pressure manifestation, in order to explain that downhole debris flow only occurs under the influence of shear factors.
Response 1: Firstly, there are few researches on underground debris flow, and the research content is relatively simple, which results in the existing research on the mechanism of underground debris flow without considering the effect of shear factor. The author believes that this opinion is very professional and constructive, because the formation of downhole debris flow will be affected by many factors, such as mining shear factors, mining pressure factors, blasting vibration disturbance factors and so on. Because the research of the underground debris flow is still in the initial stage of exploration, this paper only deeply studied the influence of the ore drawing shear factor on the underground debris flow, but did not deeply explore the influence of other factors on the underground debris flow, the author will consider the above factors in the follow-up study, making the study of downhole debris flow more systematic and comprehensive.
However, the underground debris flow occurs in the natural caving mining underground mine. Because the ore has already collapsed, the mining pressure of the natural caving mining mainly refers to the pressure of the falling ore in the range of the balance arch, which is relatively small in general. According to the information of 10 cases of downhole debris flow in table 1,7 of them are affected by ore drawing shear. Only ore drawing took place and none of the other mining activities took place. It shows that the effect of drawing shear factor on underground debris flow is great, but the effect of mining pressure on underground debris flow is negligible. In addition, it is assumed that the mining pressure is the main influencing factor for the occurrence of underground debris flow, and because the mining pressure exists at all times, the underground debris flow accident will be formed as long as there is mud body, the downhole mud-rock flow will always happen. But in the actual mining process, the underground debris flow is accidental, which also shows that the mining pressure is not the main influence factor of the underground debris flow.
The effect of mining pressure on underground debris flow has been explained in lines 175-182 of the manuscript.
Point 2: Minor editing of English language required
Response 2: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-24
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report (New Reviewer)
Please check the English grammar and format carefully. Although the manuscript has been revised through a language institution, they may lack basic knowledge of expertise in the field of the manuscript. Please check it carefully again.
Please check the English grammar and format carefully. Although the manuscript has been revised through a language institution, they may lack basic knowledge of expertise in the field of the manuscript. Please check it carefully again.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 6 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point : Please check the English grammar and format carefully. Although the manuscript has been revised through a language institution, they may lack basic knowledge of expertise in the field of the manuscript. Please check it carefully again.
Response : According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis. The changes in the manuscript are detailed in the section marked in green font.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-09-24
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Roughly complete the modifications
Author Response
作者对3号审稿人提出的所有意见和建议都进行了详细的回复。作者的回复也得到了3号审稿人的认可，作者衷心感谢3号审稿人对本文提出的建设性且有意义的评论。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the revised manuscript presents a study that investigates the effect of the shear factor of ore drawing on downhole debris flows in natural caving. While the study attempts to contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon and provide theoretical guidance for prevention and control, there are several critical comments that can be made:
1. The revised MS lacks a clear introduction and background information for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. It would be beneficial to provide an overview of downhole debris flows, their significance in mining operations, and the potential consequences of such events. Without this context, the significance and relevance of the study may not be readily apparent.
2. The study focuses on the specific case of downhole debris flow in the Plan copper mine. While this allows for a detailed analysis of the particular conditions in that mine, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to other mining operations. The passage should acknowledge this limitation and discuss potential variations in ore properties, mining techniques, and geological factors that may affect the applicability of the results to different contexts.
3. The revised MS briefly mentions that the slurry of the downhole debris flow is both pseudoplastic and thixotropic, and that the shearing force induced by ore drawing decreases viscosity and increases fluidity. However, there is no elaboration on the quantitative results obtained, the statistical analysis performed, or the interpretation of these findings. Providing more in-depth analysis and discussion of the results would strengthen the study and allow for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
4. The revised MS does not mention any comparative analysis or benchmarking against existing studies or research in the field. It would be beneficial to discuss how the findings of this study align with or differ from previous research on downhole debris flows or similar phenomena. This would provide a broader perspective and help readers evaluate the novelty and contribution of the study.
Addressing these critical comments would enhance the clarity, robustness, and overall impact of the study on the understanding and prevention of downhole debris flows.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: The revised MS lacks a clear introduction and background information for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. It would be beneficial to provide an overview of downhole debris flows, their significance in mining operations, and the potential consequences of such events. Without this context, the significance and relevance of the study may not be readily apparent.
Response 1: The author of the manuscript supplemented this section with comments from reviewers, as detailed in the “2.Analysis of influence of ore drawing shear factor” article in red lettering. The specific reply and supplement of the author are as follows: The underground mine adopting the natural caving method will inevitably lead to the collapse of the surface material in the mining process. The subsided material will be the source condition of inducing downhole debris flow. At the end of mining, underground mines will face the risk of underground debris flow. Compared with the surface natural debris flow, the underground debris flow is often more sudden, hidden and strong destructive characteristics. Because the downhole debris flow mainly occurs in the limited underground enclosed space, so it has a stronger destructive force. Even small-scale debris flow may cause serious disasters and accidents, which will bring great hidden dangers to the safety of mine production and technical personnel.
Point 2: The study focuses on the specific case of downhole debris flow in the Plan copper mine. While this allows for a detailed analysis of the particular conditions in that mine, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to other mining operations. The passage should acknowledge this limitation and discuss potential variations in ore properties, mining techniques, and geological factors that may affect the applicability of the results to different contexts.
Response 2: First of all, I would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments. Although this paper is based on the study of the underground debris flow in the Plan copper mine, natural caving mining will face such problems, from this point of view, the research results have a certain universality and adaptability. However, this paper does not discuss the potential changes of ore properties, mining technology and geological factors, which is also the lack of research in this paper. See the red font section of “7.2. Limitations” for additional information.
Point 3: The revised MS briefly mentions that the slurry of the downhole debris flow is both pseudoplastic and thixotropic, and that the shearing force induced by ore drawing decreases viscosity and increases fluidity. However, there is no elaboration on the quantitative results obtained, the statistical analysis performed, or the interpretation of these findings. Providing more in-depth analysis and discussion of the results would strengthen the study and allow for a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
Response 3: Based on the rheological test and thixotropy test of mud-rock flow slurry, the author obtains the quantitative test data of mud-rock flow slurry to judge that mud-rock has the characteristics of both pseudoplasticity and thixotropy.
Point 4: The revised MS does not mention any comparative analysis or benchmarking against existing studies or research in the field. It would be beneficial to discuss how the findings of this study align with or differ from previous research on downhole debris flows or similar phenomena. This would provide a broader perspective and help readers evaluate the novelty and contribution of the study.
Response 4: In the chapter “1. Introduction”, the author further adds the background of the study and the previous research on underground debris flow. In addition, in the section“2.Analysis of influence of ore drawing shear factor,” the author adds background information on mining. For more information, see red fonts in files.
Point 5: Minor editing of English language required
Response 5: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis. See the red font in the paper for details of the changes.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-08-15
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Unfortunately I could not see sufficient information about the study site, novelty of the study, and the methodology. The organization of the manuscript is difficult to follow.
I consider that the manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
There are many repetitive statements that makes the manuscript difficult to understand.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
The mine debris flow is a kind of debris flow which is induced by the change of the original terrain and geological conditions due to the man-made mining behavior in the mountainous area where the mineral resources are concentrated. There are essential differences between the occurrence mechanism of debris flow in mines and the geological disasters such as surface landslide, tunnel debris flow and so on. Therefore, the study of underground debris flow disaster belongs to a brand-new research field of debris flow.
Compared with the surface natural debris flow, the underground debris flow is often more sudden, hidden and strong destructive characteristics. Downhole debris flow occurs underground, which makes it hidden and invisible. Due to the limitation of current underground monitoring and detection technology, and the absence of prior warning information when it occurs, it has the characteristics of burst. Because the downhole debris flow mainly occurs in the confined space, even the small-scale debris flow may cause serious disasters, making it more destructive. Therefore, compared with surface open-pit mine debris flow, the formation mechanism of underground mine debris flow is more complex. Therefore, the research on the mechanism and prevention and control of underground debris flow disaster is still in a blank state.
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mining shear factor on downhole debris flows in natural caving. The research background was the downhole debris flow in the Plan copper mine, and we analyzed the characteristics of the slurry material structure of the downhole debris flow, as well as the influence of the ore drawing shear factor on the formation mechanism of the downhole debris flow.
Based on the rheological and thixotropic tests of debris flow slurry, the quantitative test data of debris flow slurry are obtained, and the shear action of slurry during ore drawing is analyzed. It is pointed out that the shear factor of ore drawing has an important influence on the formation of underground debris flow, and has an important contribution to the formation of underground debris flow. Therefore, according to the characteristics of the effect of the shear coefficient of ore drawing on the mud of underground debris flow, the prevention measures and suggestions of underground debris flow are put forward.
In addition, According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis. See the red font in the paper for details of the changes.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-08-15
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors present their study that explores the influence of ore drawing shear factor on downhole debris flows in natural caving, focusing on the Plan copper mine. It analyzes the slurry material structure of the debris flow and reveals that shear forces induced during ore drawing reduce viscosity and increase fluidity of the slurry. The shear force activates the paste, making it flowable and contributing to debris flow. The authors try to address a knowledge gap in understanding downhole debris flow mechanisms and offer insights for its prevention and control in mining operations. The manuscript is well-structured and engaging, aligning with the journal scope. However, there is a significant issue that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
In Section 5, the authors offer preventive measures and recommendations to mitigate downhole debris flows in natural caving. They propose a reduction in ore drawing speed during the rainy season as a precautionary measure. However, the current experiments, which only demonstrate the pseudoplastic and thixotropic nature of debris flows, do not adequately substantiate this suggestion. To strengthen their argument, additional experiments are required to establish the relation between rainfall and debris flow saturation and to test samples with varying saturations. Similarly, another set of experiments is needed to establish the relationship between drawing speed and shear forcing. These proposed measures would be more compelling if supported by observations from these experiments. Conversely, excluding these recommendations and solely focusing on the pseudoplastic and thixotropic properties of the samples may result in insufficient content to warrant publication.
Minor points:
1. I would suggest revising the title to " Study on the Effect of Ore Drawing Shear Factor on Downhole Debris Flow in the Natural Caving Method"
2. The language of the manuscript is generally good; however, I have noticed some grammar mistakes, such as the sentence "Silalahi et al., in relation to the Jayawijaya ore body in Papua, which is mined using a gravity flow system" at line 88. I recommend that the authors carefully review the manuscript again to ensure language accuracy.
3. The authors use the acronym 'Q' to abbreviate 'Quaternary,' but this acronym is not subsequently employed throughout the rest of the paper.
4. Any symbols, such as lines, dots, and circles, need to be properly labeled in the plots or explained in the corresponding captions.
5. In the first conclusion of Section 5, the authors mention "An analysis of more than 10 downhole debris flow accidents in analysis of more than 10 downhole debris flow accidents…", yet I could not find any analysis of these accidents within the manuscript. The reasons for the accidents are directly listed in Table 1 without sufficient supporting evidence. It may not be appropriate to term it as an analysis here.
The language of the manuscript is generally good; however, I have noticed some grammar mistakes, such as the sentence "Silalahi et al., in relation to the Jayawijaya ore body in Papua, which is mined using a gravity flow system" at line 88. I recommend that the authors carefully review the manuscript again to ensure language accuracy.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: I would suggest revising the title to " Study on the Effect of Ore Drawing Shear Factor on Downhole Debris Flow in the Natural Caving Method"
Response 1: The author agrees with the reviewer's suggestion. The author has revised and adjusted the title of the paper.
Point 2: The language of the manuscript is generally good; however, I have noticed some grammar mistakes, such as the sentence "Silalahi et al., in relation to the Jayawijaya ore body in Papua, which is mined using a gravity flow system" at line 88. I recommend that the authors carefully review the manuscript again to ensure language accuracy.
Response 2: The author has revised it on the advice of the reviewer, as detailed in the sentence in lines 89-91.
Point 3: The authors use the acronym 'Q' to abbreviate 'Quaternary,' but this acronym is not subsequently employed throughout the rest of the paper.
Response 3: The author uses the acronym“Q” in Figure 2(a) , which is“Ground Moraine (Q)” in Figure 2(a) .
Point 4: Any symbols, such as lines, dots, and circles, need to be properly labeled in the plots or explained in the corresponding captions.
Response 4: The author has commented on the”-” symbol in table 1.
Point 5: In the first conclusion of Section 5, the authors mention "An analysis of more than 10 downhole debris flow accidents in analysis of more than 10 downhole debris flow accidents…", yet I could not find any analysis of these accidents within the manuscript. The reasons for the accidents are directly listed in Table 1 without sufficient supporting evidence. It may not be appropriate to term it as an analysis here.
Response 5: According to the comments of the reviewer, the author has revised the conclusion (1) in “6. Conclusions” . See the changes in lines 316-320 for details.
Point 6: In Section 5, the authors offer preventive measures and recommendations to mitigate downhole debris flows in natural caving. They propose a reduction in ore drawing speed during the rainy season as a precautionary measure. However, the current experiments, which only demonstrate the pseudoplastic and thixotropic nature of debris flows, do not adequately substantiate this suggestion.
Response 6: The relation between drawing shear force and drawing velocity is very complex. It is difficult to measure the bulk ore drawing flow accurately with the available technology. In addition, on the relationship between the drawing shear force and the drawing speed, the author cites the existing research results of scholars, explains and cites them in detail, see references [28,29] .
Point 7: Minor editing of English language required
Response 7: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis. See the red font in the paper for details of the changes.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-08-15
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
There are Chinese character shown in Figure 2. The effect of water is described in the Figure 9 but not in the conclusion, this is a major influence factor that should not be omitted. From table 1, 30% of downhole debris flow are not related to the ore drawing and is not discussed within the manuscript. Figure 5 is very messy, the text are blending into graphic symbols that is difficult to read. Rheology and thixotropy of the slurry affected by the drawing shear, but the magnitude of such makes a different and how about the particle size of it? Is this finding only suitable for the case of nature caving mining method? how about block caving then?
The English writing is kind of difficult to catch up with author's meaning. Line 300 Using the downhole debris flow in the Plan copper mine, this study investigated the effect of ore drawing shear on a downhole debris flow. "What do you mean...." Line 270 based on the characteristics of the effect of ore drawing shear factor on the slurry of downhole debris flow "There are three 'of' in one sentence......
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review this paper. The author would like to thank the reviewer for his pertinent and constructive comments. The author again thanks the reviewers for their time and dedication. The following author will be in accordance with the specific comments of the reviewers of this paper for serious revision and improvement.
Point 1: There are Chinese character shown in Figure 2.
Response 1: The author has modified the Chinese characters in Figure 2.
Point 2: The effect of water is described in the Figure 9 but not in the conclusion, this is a major influence factor that should not be omitted.
Response 2: Figure 9 shows "Rheological curve of slurry samples with different water contents". The rheological properties of mud under different water content are tested, the aim of which is to determine which kind of fluid the mud belongs to.
Point 3: From table 1, 30% of downhole debris flow are not related to the ore drawing and is not discussed within the manuscript.
Response 3: The author has explained and explained whether the other 30% of the downhole debris flows in table 1 are related to ore drawing and the reasons why they have not been considered and analyzed.
Point 4: Figure 5 is very messy, the text are blending into graphic symbols that is difficult to read.
Response 4: The author has rearranged and typeset figure 5.
Point 5: Rheology and thixotropy of the slurry affected by the drawing shear, but the magnitude of such makes a different and how about the particle size of it? Is this finding only suitable for the case of nature caving mining method? how about block caving then?
Response 5: The particle size of granular particles used in the author's experiment is determined according to the field average particle size. The findings of this manuscript are not only applicable to the case of natural caving mining, but also applicable to the case of open-pit mining to underground mining. The author has been updated in “7.1. Future Development”.
Point 6: The English writing is kind of difficult to catch up with author's meaning. Line 300 Using the downhole debris flow in the Plan copper mine, this study investigated the effect of ore drawing shear on a downhole debris flow. "What do you mean...." Line 270 based on the characteristics of the effect of ore drawing shear factor on the slurry of downhole debris flow "There are three 'of' in one sentence......
Response 6: According to the problems of English language quality put forward by the reviewers, the author has made some professional refinements to this thesis, and revised and perfected the grammatical errors and language expressions in this thesis. See the red font in the paper for details of the changes.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Wish you all the best.
Sincerely yours,
Xiangdong Niu
2023-08-15
Tel:+86 15198934646
E-mail: [email protected]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
