A Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Bench Blast Performance in Open-Pit Mine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the article is of interest for surface miners. Rock blasting quality needs comprehensive approach for evaluation indeed. However, the article would win, if some methodological notes are revised:

1. Table 4 (line 141) needs more specific comments of the weight values calculation.
2. Since the article presents the quality of DBW on the bench, the results of study require an example of the wells and shotpile parameters, specific consumption of explosive, etc., calculated for a certain case using the program proposed. I suggest placing it after Figure 6. 
3. Conclusion section does not present the advantages of the method proposed, and test results. I suppose it should show not only the differences between methods of evaluation DBW quality, but also the specific results of the study.

I wish you fast accomplishing of your manuscript preparation and successful continuation of your research! Be fine!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors in their manuscript proposed new evaluation method of bench blast performance in open-pit mine. The subject is not new; however, the described approach is interesting and with some improvements could be useful.

The downside of the manuscript is that Authors failed to clearly explain the application, input parameters or their implementation. Also, some information on which Authors base their approach are not fully correct.

The comments are as follows:

1. Line 13 – word “reasonable” does not have any particular meaning as a description of “blasting design”. Maybe Authors should use word “optimized” or similar instead, unless it is a quote, but then it should be in quotation marks.
2. Line 21 – part of the sentence “… make all the parameters can be obtained ….” is not clear and should be rephrased. Maybe something like: “… allows obtaining all of the parameters ….”
3. Line 23 - end of the sentence “… the next blast design to optimize.” is not clear and should be rephrased. Maybe something like: “… optimization of the next blast design.”
4. Lines 27, 29, 30, 46 and 75 – word “and” and “etc.” can not be together. Use only one of them.
5. Line 30 - word “reasonable” – same as under 1.
6. Line 43 – statement “it cannot determine which factor has the greatest effect on the result” is not fully correct. Some ANN software gives influence chart for all parameters.
7. Line 53 – instead “Sadaovsk formula” should be “Sadovsky equation”
8. Line 57 – the last sentence in paragraph “Therefore, this……” is not fully correct. These equations are mostly site specific, but than again is the Authors proposal, and they are still widely used due to their simplicity and relatively good reliability in results
9. Line 75 – the last part of sentence “… maximizing the blasting efficiency is important for optimizing the blast design.” in my opinion should be the other way around – “… optimizing of the blast design is important for maximizing the blasting efficiency.”
10. Line 80 – all 11 chosen parameters should be described in detail. It is because if “uplifted height” is the top part of the blasted material, why is better to be low value? Similar is with “forward distance”, if it means stretching of material forward from bench, again why is it better if it is lower value. Both mentioned parameters are decided in advance according to loading machine that quarry possesses, and as a result are acquired purposely. If loading machine is excavator, bench blasting will be with 3 or more rows and shorted time delays between rows, thus blasting will leave material close to bench and with top part same or slightly lower/higher than bench itself. If loading machine is loader, bench blasting will be with 1 to 2 rows and longer time delays between rows, thus blasting will leave material spread forward from bench and with top part about half of the height of the bench itself.
11. Line 96 – end part of sentence is missing word “and” – “safety, quality and cost respectively”
12. Line 109 – equation 3 – should in brackets between values “k-1” and “k+1” be value “k”?
13. Line 113 – equation 5 – same as under 12.
14. Line 120 – sentence “The rock fragmentation….” – today software is available for use with any camera or photo type, or cameras with inbuilt software that automatically gives rock fragmentation size distribution in table view and graphically.
15. Line 136-127 – the acquiring of the parameters mentioned in sentences “…. And the other parameters ……… blasting engineering information.” should be explained in more detail.
16. Figure 2 – also insert a sample picture/image (as a new figure) with explanation on how are determined fragmentation and boulder yield.
17. Figure 3 – also insert a sample picture/image (as a new figure) with explanation on how muck pile height is determined.
18. Always use the same words for parameters in manuscript (in text, figures, tables) – samples: uplifted height/muck pile height – back break/backward distance
19. Lines 132-139 – whole paragraph is to vaguely written. Give samples for adjusting data range with reasons why.
20. Table 3 – Vibration is not mentioned
21. Table 4 – it is not clear how did Authors get weight values of subclasses, which parameters data ranges were used, etc. As it is visible from the table the only parameter that really matters in subclass Blasting quality is boulder yield, and it is (in my experience) far less important than parameters in subclass Blasting safety as well as same or less important than parameters in subclass Blasting costs.
22. Line 146 – end of the sentence “… displayed by the form of graph.” – Insert mentioned graph in manuscript.
23. Figure 5 – under 2. “Sadaovsk formula” should be “Sadovsky equation”
24. Line 157 – in the sentence “… between photo measurement and …” – insert photo measurement and describe in more detail how to get correction coefficient.
25. Line 167 – work “was” should be replaced with “were”
26. Table 5 – same as under 20.
27. Line 179 – word “bench” is misspelled (beach)
28. Line 182 – word “unreasonable” – same as under 1.
29. Chapter 4 Application – There are no any data or data range for vibration, thus it is unclear on where did Authors get input data for calculations. At least the vibration measuring instrument description and measurement report should be included in manuscript, as well as drilling and blasting pattern and type, quantity of explosive used in blasting and which type of detonators were used.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Firstly, I would like to thank authors for implementing all of my comments on the first version of the manuscript.

There are only few more small adjustments to be made. Comments are as follows:

1. Line 76 – “… optimizing of the blast design…..” – remove word “of”
2. Line 83 – remove words “flying stone” at the end of the sentence
3. Table 3 and 5 - measurement units are missing for parameter Vibration
4. Line 172 – at the end of the sentence insert reference (fig 8 and 9)
5. Line 230 – the end of the sentence “… next blast design to optimize” rephrase in something like “optimization of the next blast design”
6. Somewhere in chapter 4, insert table with sample raw data taken from one representative blast for all 11 parameters which you used to calculate blast effect evaluation in your manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx