Investigation of Fault Effect on Blast-Induced Vibration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presented issue concerning peak particle velocity in the rock mass is very important due to the unfavorable impact on the surrounding environment. In the article, tests in the vicinity of the fault are particularly important, as they constitute important scientific information for a mining plant related to the safety of blasting works. Below are some comments and suggestions:

1. In the introduction, it should be mentioned that the monitoring of peak particle velocity is very important in the conditions of a stratified rock mass, which is protected by mining support (doi.org/10.3390/en13082082).
2. Second chapter is too short to be independent. I suggest combining it with another chapter or extending it significantly with information on the size and schedule of extraction.
3. In the third chapter, it is necessary to write what software was used to create the block model shown in Fig. 5. Moreover, it should be written what parameters the fault was characterized by; mainly: throw, the angle of the fault plane, amplitude, horizontal range.
4. Line 225, the figure number should be corrected; rather 5.
5. Lines 230, 232 wrong numbering of figures, it should be corrected also in the further part of the article.
6. In Figure 5b, correct the word „Yemleme” or mention what it means in the text.
7. The sentence in line 266: "... proposed by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM) ..." should be given a reference. In addition, the text should explain what the parameters K and beta mean, presented in Table 2.
8. Line 316, it should be corrected the punctuation mark in the sentence "... In Figure 9. It is clearly seen ....".
9. In the fourth chapter on vibration measurements, it should be written what type of geophones and software were used in the research.
10. In the fifth chapter on the discussion, it should be mentioned that on the basis of the ppv, scales are often developed which make it possible to estimate the extent of damage to the excavation (doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20187100006).
11. Summarizing, one conclusion should be written relating to the recommendation for the mining plant related to the size of the explosive or the scope of monitoring.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be improved in terms of presentation.

1. The figure quality is poor.
2. Reduce the number of figures to 6 or 7.
3. Make sure you use SI units only. 
4. Follow the format of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is written in a messy way, finding in its content twice figure 4 and twice figure 5, as well as portions of text that seem to be introduced later without harmonizing with the rest of the work.
Also, from the way of presentation, although the measurements performed in the field are indisputable, the analyzed aspects do not bring any scientific contribution to the field.
The effects of the fault area can be estimated without this study and it is considered that for the specialists in the field they are known and the differences obtained in the measurements performed are obvious.
The conclusions are more a summary presentation of the results, the author in fact does not formulate conclusions.
The paper requires an English language assessment.
It is recommended to the author a revision of the paper content and formulation of some conclusions that would highlight the scientific purpose of the experiments made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

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

...

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes a field experimental program to measure blast-induced vibrations at a limestone quarry. The vibrations are measured across a fault zone. The paper is somewhat interesting but needs improvement before it can be considered for publication. See my comments below:

1. The title of the paper may be revisited to highlight the contents of this paper
2. Reduce the number of figures
3. Reinforce the paper with a more updated literature review
4. Add some text on recommendations and future work
5. Add key specific results in abstract
6. Add more keywords
7. Line 52-53 there are more parameters than specified
8. I found a lot of repetition in the text. Remove it
9. Line 129: Use a better word instead of 'lie'
10. Add specs of geophone and monitoring equipment used
11. Add installation procedure
12. Show details of blast vibration monitoring program and setup
13. Show locations of geophones installed on-site (use a map) - also indicate fault zone
14. Figure 5: also include a cross-section of a bench to be blasted with a borehole
15. Figures 8, 9, and 10: use dashed lines for southwest data
16. Table 3: Check columns again, I think you flipped the titles.
17. Also, comment on changes that happened to the fault. Did vibrations cause any displacement in fault?
18. Can you say how much magnitude of vibrations was reduced in the form of percentage?

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript tried to investigate the influence of fault on blasting vibration. In Section 2, the authors introduced the quarry and its geology in detail, but failed to correlate them with the research topic. The data analysis and discussions are very shallow without any interesting discoveries. From this research I can only learn that faults contribute to the attenuation of blasting wave. Actually, blasting waves may be affected by a variety of factors like the size and orientation of fault, lithology and so on, but none of them was considered in this manuscript. I suppose this manuscript contributes little to the practical engineering. Therefore, I would not suggest its publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

The study presented should be repurposed as a technical note. The content is not original and does not provide a meaningful contribution to scientific knowledge of the addressed topic. 

To be considered as a technical note, the paper should be shortened, and the geological description should be greatly improved to provide readers with an understanding of how the fault zone(s) differs from the host rock. Readers will benefit from the study if they can extract quantifiable information pertaining to the influence of specific geomechanical properties on blast wave propagation.

The literature review section is lacking and a series of improvements are proposed with references in the attached document.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf