Study on Permeability Evolution Law of Rock Mass under Mining Stress
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI do feel not good about this manuscript coz lacking scientific quality. The purpose of this manuscript is good, however the authors cannot present a clear and reasonable paper structure, key information, and valuable analysis. My suggestion is reject or re-submit after major-major-major revision.
1. Some expressions are quite strange: Line 31-32, 32-35: I can not see strong relationships between reasons and results.
2. Line 36: You mentioned ‘compaction’ however this sentence has noting with it, why?
3. Line 41: from my understanding, in bending zone cracks wouldn't pass through it, otherwise it becomes fracture zone, please re-organize your description.
4. Fig 1: You have water in mining-out areas, where is it from? Can you plot the aquifer? And, as mentioned above, if bending zone exists, water may not penetrate into goaf.
5. Line 43: several = ?
6. Line 75-80: I don’t think it is related in the context.
7. Line 98 and 107: Why the thicknesses are different?
8. Line 124: Why you only show samples from No. 3 coal seam? You said you have two study areas above.
9. Fig 2: Can you include rock names for each sample?
10. Section 3.2: It’s most of a machine introduction rather than a test plan, what are the parameters of the machine? Did you repeat your tests? Did you only conduct 4 penetration tests?
11. Line 164: What loading rate?
12. Line 166: Where are these testing points?
13. Line 192: What do you mean ‘penetration of macro-cracks’?
14. Line 195: How you divide these stages?
15. Line 197: What deformation? Axial? Circumferential? Volumatic?
16. Line 200: Make it clear, in axial direction.
17. Line 195-208 and 209-227 are repeated. The authors may want to connect small-size samples and full-size coal seams, but obviously I can not get any useful information from your description because they are repeated. Besides, how you measure changes in coal samples during loading?
18. Line 244 and 274: Why different stage names?
19. Section 4.3: I cannot tell how important the equations you provided are, probably you can provide some plots using your equation to prove it.
20. Line 355: Are you sure it is fracture zone?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageToo much nonsense
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. High similarity (23%) was found in the paper.
2. How to ensure the pressure difference was maintained at 1.5 MPa of the specimen during loading and failure process?
3. Figure 3 is not clearly labeled. For example, where do water pressure and atmospheric pressure refer to？
4. The coupling model of stress-water pressure-permeability coefficient of fractured rock was established in the paper. How to verify its accuracy？
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English writing needs further improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the paper of Pengpeng Zhang, Yanheng Li, Mingjing Xu, Bin Yao, Chenliang Zhang «Study on Permeability Evolution Law of Rock Mass under Mining Stress»
The study is relevant and examines the relationship between stress and permeability of four rocks under compression conditions. The authors studied the stages of the fracture process and proposed a generalized model of the permeability of the rock mass. The manuscript can be recommended for publication taking into account the following comments.
• Since data on increasing the rate of fracture process are not presented, it should be explained why the authors associated stage IV with unstable failure? (lines 269-271)
• It is necessary to correct the designation of stage â…¥ in line 267 to IV;
• It would be advisable to show the highlighted stages in Figure 4 as well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment,thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors4: The diagram of the mining-out area in Fig 1 is not satisfactory, please redraw the goaf (broken rock blocks) so that readers can quickly recognize it.
8: If No.15-1 coal seam is not your study object, please avoid describing it too much.
9: Can you make it more clear in corresponding text in the manuscript that you have these four kinds of samples?
10: ‘3.2 Test design’ is not good, perhaps ‘3.2 Testing equipment’ or what?
16: The description of elastic might be questionable, can you provide evidence of the changes in sample volume and/or refer to some relevant papers (may not cite them)?
17: Not a good response, the authors need to tell readers why your equations are good (or not)? What are the applicable areas?
Some small tips:
Line 38: ‘During’
Line 121 ‘Table 1’
Line 123 ‘Figure 2’
Line 174 ‘The’
Can you please avoid such small problems? Please check the entire manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAccept in present form
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking time to review this manuscript and based on your comments, we have made this paper improved.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo more comments
