Mechanism of Roof Deformation and Support Optimization of Deeply Buried Roadway under Mining Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript studies the identification of the location of the weak layer in the roof and its deformation. Theoretical assessment, numerical method, and field measurements were taken and studied in tandem to uncover possible connections. The work needs improvement before it may be processed further. Consider my comments for improvement. See attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

a support optimization is proposed for a deformation in mine roadway with reference to the  location of weak interlayer in the roof with reference to the change in thickness of hard strata and weak layer using a simulation

References 8-12 are reviewed for modelling the phenomenon of deformation in case of interlaying weak strata under varying: dip angle of the weak interlayer, stress conditions, bolt anchorage loacations,

1. There is lack of emphasis on the scientific purpose because the literature review is surficial and requires in-depth analysis to identify what gaps are addressed in this manuscript to establish novelty

2. The manuscript needs to be reviewed, although I see some elements of contribution, they have to be presented in the right manner

some denotations need explanation in the text

3. A discussion section must be incorporated to establish contribution after comparing the results with previous similar work

4. I have annotated the PDF in detail for the author to reconsider revising the aspects mentioned there

5. References need to be formatted in accordance with the requirements of the journal

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After reading the manuscript “Deformation and surrounding rock control of mining-disturbed roadway with roof containing weak interlayer”, my comments are listed below;

1.     The authors have investigated the effect of weak layers in the stability of roadways, however the study novelty is still missing.

2.     The abstract must include the problem statement/research gap, which pushed the authors for conducting this study.

3.     The mechanical properties are always responsible for stability, what new in the study?

4.     Revised the abstract, which must include the introduction, problem statement, methodology, prominent results, and their field applications.

5.     The study is more like a case study, so revise the title accordingly.

6.     Some minor linguistic mistakes are in the manuscript. A few are; line 35-36, 40d? etc.

7.     It is not appropriate to write Reference word in the text. Change the citation format according to the journal format (see the instructions for authors for the purpose).

8.     The exiting literature for the study justification is limited. No clear scenario has been developed for this study.

9.     The article is more like a case study; therefore, the project details are required. Project location with map, working condition in the project, etc,

10.  How the authors showed the stress level in Figure 1? Only showing the red lines are not enough.

11.   No details are available for figure 2. Details about modelling are required.

12.  Include the lithological details.

13.  Enough description for the figures are required.

14.  What are the results of Equation 1-12?

15.  Selection of input parameters for numerical modelling are missing?

16.  Modelling details are missing?

17.  Insitu stress condition must be explained along with the fish functioning in FLAC modelling.

18.  Modelling with composite support is missing.

19.  How the authors mixed the field data with numerical modelling and theoretical analysis.

20.  Conclusion must be concise and must be back on the study results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved greatly. The authors are advised to proof read the paper again and remove minor errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty may please be expressed explicitly in a discussion section. The rest of the paper has improved significantly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      No need the word “study on” in the title of the manuscript.

2.      Keep the abstract words within the limits, as mentioned in the journal guidelines for authors. Make it concise.

3.      Table 2 description (physical and mechanical)

4.      Figure 6, keep the text size uniform for the legend.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf