Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

Thanks for this opportunity to review this manuscript. I appreciate the author's contribution to the field and believe that the paper is valuable and provides new insights into the subject matter.

This study proposes that the risk of rockburst in entire mine should be studied through the "double high" risk evaluation of microseismic events. Technical challenges such as challenge is rock mass stability and the risk of rockburst events grow in complexity as mining occurs in deeper and deeper settings. The external forces can include seismic activity, mining operations, or even natural geological processes. The sudden release of energy during a rockburst can result devastating consequences, such as the collapse of mine and pose a significant risk to the safety of miners. Accurate risk assessment allows for the implementation of preventive measures and the development of emergency response plans to ensure the safety of personnel and equipment in underground operations. At the same time, coal-gas explosions represent also a special type of rockburst that can cause serious dynamic disasters in deep mining.

Please check line 233: I think "double high" is correct, not "double height"

Similarly, line 242

In my opinion, the paper can be accepted for publication after minor corrections in text editing.

Yours faithfully,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor corrections in text editing

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

We would like to thank you for your kind letter and for reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article “Construction and application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for rockburst based on microseismic monitoring” (applsci-2678011). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to the reviewers’ comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript to meet with the requirements of your journal. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

(1) Please check line 233: I think "double high" is correct, not "double height".

Response: Thank you for the good comment. We have revised the text to address your concerns and hope that it is now clearer. We changed all "double height "in the article to "double high"; On this basis, we have checked and modified the professional vocabulary in the article and revised the way of discussion of some paragraphs. Besides, we have double-checked the English to polish the language throughout the manuscript. All revisions have been highlighted in blue and underlined in the article.

If there are other revisions we can make, we would very much like to revise them and thank you again for your positive comments and valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscripts.

 

Sincerely yours,

Shumin Liu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Construction and application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for rockburst based on microseismic monitoring” is devoted to usage of specific fuzzy logic-based method to evaluate risks at mines using microseismic monitoring data.

Regretfully, I cannot recommend the paper for publication in its current form, as it requires major revision due to issues with data processing, methodology, and discussion. Here is a list of issues to deal with:

Section 2.1 is written in a specific way, not typical for technical papers. Therefore, there are some issues with it. E.g. lines 143-145 kind of repeat lines 129-136, so the first principle becomes a part of the second one. I would recommend checking the section carefully and probably rewrite it in less philosophical way (what is the difference between “objective reality” and “the essence of things” in line 130?). I would especially ask the authors to pay attention to usage of capital letters throughout the section, as they are not used in a unified form.

I would also like to draw attention to lines 215-241. Equations are not written in an optimal way, some of them lack numbering. Usage of particular equations (like lines 216-218, 229) requires background to prove it them to a proper form for analysis. I would also like some discussion on Table 1, as other factors may be necessary for proper risk assessment.

Section 2.3 seems like a repetition of section 2.2 to me. Are all schemes really necessary? It looks like lines 212-214 cover the whole section 2.3. It would be better to add some discussion rather than repeat the same scheme several more times.

Section 3.1 requires proofreading. The authors should pay close attention to usage of different fonts, indices and vector operations here. Once again, it is necessary to unify the rules of addressing various parameters.

Section 4.2 is another example of data representation not in a perfect way. It is not necessary to show all calculation steps with numbers. More attention should be paid to initial data rather than elementary arithmetic. Discussion of parameters set in Table 3, influence of the input data on result are more important than lines 405-430 in my opinion; these lines can be merely summed up in lines 431-432.

Table 7 requires revision basically due to formatting.

Overall, discussion section is essential for this paper. If I understand the authors idea correctly, lines 500-509 contain the main result of the whole study – three numbers and corresponding classification. Almost no discussion is provided. Nevertheless, there are many questions. What does low difference between medium and high risk degrees mean? Are these results sensitive to input data? Where does confidence in these results come from? Are these results in agreement with other evaluations? How would one use the same technique to analyze different mines? Where do initial data come from? How does one use microseismic monitoring results to complete such risk evaluation? Many questions like these should be answered in discussion and, perhaps, some sections devoted to initial data. I would suggest major changes to the manuscript as it requires more detailed sections devoted to “Initial data processing”, “Methodology”, and “Discussion”. For now, I cannot say that I was convinced by the research and became assured that the Yanbei Coal Mine belongs to high risk category and corresponding operations are required.

I also have some minor issues to point out:

I think that the line “Currently, countries such as Poland, South Africa, and Can-50 ada have established national mine vibration monitoring networks, which are broadly 51 employed in the prediction of rockbursts” (lines 50-52) needs a couple of references.

I would suggest some changes in style of lines 97-106. it is currently written as if it is a mere continuation of previously discussed existing methods, yet it should highlight the novelty of the current research. The readers should become aware of the benefits of the method proposed in the paper compared to pre-existing approaches to solve similar problems.

I would also suggest proofreading with help of native speakers. Some sentences seem to be in dire need of rephrasing like “was evaluated to evaluate the importance of the evaluation” (line 400).

I encourage authors to address these comments and comments provided by other reviewers to get the manuscript to the level which is required for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Certain changes in language are required to avoid examples like mentioned in the main body of the review.

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Construction and application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for rockburst based on microseismic monitoring” (applsci-2678011). These comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows.

(1) Section 2.1 is written in a specific way, not typical for technical papers. Therefore, there are some issues with it. E.g. lines 143-145 kind of repeat lines 129-136, so the first principle becomes a part of the second one. I would recommend checking the section carefully and probably rewrite it in less philosophical way (what is the difference between “objective reality” and “the essence of things” in line 130?). I would especially ask the authors to pay attention to usage of capital letters throughout the section, as they are not used in a unified form.

Response: Thank you for the good comment. We have modified the format of Chapter 2.1 and simplified and summarized the longer paragraphs to form a technical paper format. In addition to your question of "the first principle becomes part of the second principle", we have also made a correction, delineating the scope of the two; We have corrected the format problem you raised. On this basis, we have checked and modified the professional vocabulary in the article and revised the discussion method of some paragraphs.

(2) I would also like to draw attention to lines 215-241. Equations are not written in an optimal way, some of them lack numbering. Usage of particular equations (like lines 216-218, 229) requires background to prove it them to a proper form for analysis. I would also like some discussion on Table 1, as other factors may be necessary for proper risk assessment.

Response: We have corrected the format problems such as the lack of numbering you mentioned and marked them in the revised draft. The specific equations used, we have discussed the background of their use; The other factors you mentioned have been shown to have little effect on the risk of rockbursts. Therefore, the 8 basic parameters are still used in this paper, and no other parameters are added.

(3) Section 2.3 seems like a repetition of section 2.2 to me. Are all schemes really necessary? It looks like lines 212-214 cover the whole section 2.3. It would be better to add some discussion rather than repeat the same scheme several more times.

Response: We have optimized the formula, and the modified formula is more accurate than the original formula. In addition, Section 2.3 is not a repetition of Section 2.2, because the purpose of section 2.3 is to more comprehensively discuss the selection of each parameter and the category to which it belongs. In addition, we have revised the section to add some discussion of the selection of each parameter.

(4) Section 3.1 requires proofreading. The authors should pay close attention to usage of different fonts, indices and vector operations here. Once again, it is necessary to unify the rules of addressing various parameters.

Response: We have changed the font problem and vector indexing problems here and have uniformly treated the laws of each parameter.

(5) Section 4.2 is another example of data representation not in a perfect way. It is not necessary to show all calculation steps with numbers. More attention should be paid to initial data rather than elementary arithmetic. Discussion of parameters set in Table 3, influence of the input data on result are more important than lines 405-430 in my opinion; these lines can be merely summed up in lines 431-432.Table 7 requires revision basically due to formatting.

Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, these changes will help to better present and interpret the research content. After making revisions based on your comments, we have further improved the accuracy and readability of the paper. For Section 4.2, we deprecate the use of numbers to display all calculation steps and focus more on the initial data description and basic arithmetic content. At the same time, we have also noted your concern about the impact of parameter Settings and input data in the table, discussed and summarized it in detail, and corrected the format of the table. Through these modifications, we can evaluate the rockburst hazard of coal mine more comprehensively and accurately, establish the calculation methods of geological factor weight, mining technology factor weight and organizational management factor weight, and carry out comprehensive evaluation with the aid of single factor membership degree. It should be noted that accurate formula data support is required in the calculation process, otherwise the comprehensiveness of the evaluation and the discussion of optimization indicators will be affected.

(6) What does low difference between medium and high risk degrees mean? Are these results sensitive to input data?

Response: Thank you for your Suggestions on these issues, and our changes make the paper more clear about the differences and the sensitivity of the input data. In the revised content, we discussed the differences between high risk and high risk. We found that the difference between high risk and risk level was relatively low, which could mean that there was a certain uncertainty in the evaluation process, and the boundary division may not be clear enough. In addition, we analyzed the sensitivity of the input data to the results. We found that changes in the input data had a certain effect on the results, but did not significantly change the difference between high risk levels and levels of risk.

(7) Where does confidence in these results come from? Are these results in agreement with other evaluations? How would one use the same technique to analyze different mines? Where do initial data come from? How does one use microseismic monitoring results to complete such risk evaluation?

Response: Thanks for asking these questions, our revisions are designed to better explain the credibility and consistency of the results, and introduce data sources and possible research directions. We further explain the sources of confidence in these results. Our assessment methodology is based on extensive research and experience, and comes to conclusions through the calculation and comprehensive evaluation of geological factor weights, mining technology factor weights and organizational management factor weights. This makes it possible to assess credibly the degree of risk of rockburst hazards in coal mines. Regarding the consistency of the results with other evaluations, we pointed out that there may be differences between our evaluation methods and other evaluation methods. This is caused by the different emphases and assumptions of different evaluation methods. However, we encourage researchers to make appropriate adjustments and comparisons on a case-by-case basis when analyzing different microseismic signals using the same technique. This helps to obtain more comprehensive and consistent evaluation results. Regarding the source of the initial data, we explained that the initial data we used came from reliable databases and measured data from the mining site. These data are strictly screened and verified to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation process. As for how to use the microseismic monitoring results to complete the risk assessment, we adopted Yanbei Coal mine for on-site monitoring, and tested with the microseismic monitoring data of rock burst accidents that had occurred in the mine. The results proved that the accident tree model proposed in this paper plays an important role in improving the dynamic monitoring effect of mine microseismic signals.

(8) How does one use microseismic monitoring results to complete such risk evaluation? Many questions like these should be answered in discussion and, perhaps, some sections devoted to initial data. I would suggest major changes to the manuscript as it requires more detailed sections devoted to “Initial data processing”, “Methodology”, and “Discussion”.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions which have enabled us to make appropriate improvements to the manuscript. In the area of "initial data processing", we detail the source of the initial data and the rigorous screening and verification steps taken. In the "Methodology" section, we elaborate on specific methods for risk assessment using microseismic monitoring results, including microseismic monitoring principles and data analysis techniques, as well as methods for correlating microseismic monitoring results with other data sets. In the "Discussion" section, we further answer the question of how to use the microseismic monitoring results to complete the risk assessment.

(8) I think that the line “Currently, countries such as Poland, South Africa, and Can-50 ada have established national mine vibration monitoring networks, which are broadly 51 employed in the prediction of rockbursts” (lines 50-52) needs a couple of references.

Response: At your suggestion, We have added the relevant reference on "Poland, South Africa, and Can-50 ada have established national mine vibration monitoring networks". The specific changes are in the references [14, 15].

(9) I would suggest some changes in style of lines 97-106. it is currently written as if it is a mere continuation of previously discussed existing methods, yet it should highlight the novelty of the current research. The readers should become aware of the benefits of the method proposed in the paper compared to pre-existing approaches to solve similar problems.

Response: In response to your suggestions, we have made further changes to lines 97-106 to highlight the novelty of the current study and to compare it with existing methods. We have reorganized these sentences to ensure that the reader has a clear understanding of the advantages of this method over the existing methods discussed earlier. In the revised content, we emphasize the innovativeness of this method and explain the comparison between this method and existing methods. By elaborating the improvement of this method, readers can better recognize the advantages of this method over existing methods and understand why this method is more suitable for solving similar problems.

(10) I would also suggest proofreading with help of native speakers. Some sentences seem to be in dire need of rephrasing like “was evaluated to evaluate the importance of the evaluation” (line 400).

Response: According to your suggestion, we have asked native speakers to proofread the paper to ensure that the language expression of the paper is more fluent and accurate. In the process of proofreading, we pay special attention to the sentences that need to be rewritten, such as the sentence in the 400th line you mentioned has been changed, and on this basis, the full text has been revised and polished.

 

If there are other revisions we can make, we would very much like to revise them and thank you again for your positive comments and valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscripts.

 

Sincerely yours,

Shumin Liu

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Clearly state the research focus and the connection between rockbursts and microseismic event indicators. Clarify the process of optimizing the rockburst evaluation indexes, including how the initial 43 indexes were reduced to eight. Explain the construction of the "double high" accident tree in more detail, including the rationale behind using microseismic events as a top event. Describe the components of the "double high" risk evaluation index system more explicitly, including the first-level and second-level indicators. Elaborate on the application of the fuzzy hierarchical comprehensive evaluation model, and how it was used to assess the "double high" risk of microseismic events in Yanbei Coal Mine. 

Author Response

Dear editors and reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and your valuable suggestions on our article. These comments are very important for us to improve the article “Construction and application of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model for rockburst based on microseismic monitoring” (applsci-2678011). We discussed the reviewer's suggestions very seriously and went all out to modify them to meet the requirements of your journal. Everything in the manuscript that has been revised has been highlighted in blue and underlined. Revision notes, point-to-point, are given as follows:

(1) Clearly state the research focus and the connection between rockbursts and microseismic event indicators.

Response: Thank the reviewer for the good comment. We have made changes in the abstract and the main text to clarify the relationship between research priorities and microseismic monitoring indicators.

(2) Clarify the process of optimizing the rockburst evaluation indexes, including how the initial 43 indexes were reduced to eight.

Response: As mentioned in the paper, the 43 indicators are not classified one by one, but the indicators with high similarity are fused to form 8 basic indicators, and it is pointed out that there are 3 intermediate indicators, and the 43 indicators are too complicated to effectively determine the rockburst tendency of coal and rock mass.

(3) Explain the construction of the "double high" accident tree in more detail, including the rationale behind using microseismic events as a top event.

Response: We have made changes to the structure of the "double height" accident tree you mentioned and have explained the principle of the accident tree and the top design in detail.

(4) Describe the components of the "double high" risk evaluation index system more explicitly, including the first-level and second-level indicators. Elaborate on the application of the fuzzy hierarchical comprehensive evaluation model, and how it was used to assess the "double high" risk of microseismic events in Yanbei Coal Mine.

Response: We have made changes to these questions you raised, and the revised article has also improved the components of the accident tree and the application of fuzzy hierarchical comprehensive evaluation model. At the same time, the application results of Yanbei Coal mine you mentioned are also described in detail.

If there are other revisions we can make, we would very much like to revise them and thank you again for your positive comments and valuable comments to improve the quality of our manuscripts.

 

Sincerely yours,

Shumin Liu

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have successfully addressed all issues I mentioned in the initial review round.  I am now free to recommend the article for publication and will be waiting for future research papers.