A Numerical Simulation of the Subsidence Reduction Effect of Different Grouting Schemes in Multi-Coal Seam Goafs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have a few questions/suggestions:

1/ Is it possible to verify the simulation results in reality?

2/ I propose to reduce the interval between seams to every 10 m, which may give a more accurate description of the discussed phenomenon.

3/ The phenomenon is discussed locally (China). Can the results of the simulation be used in another part of the world?

4/ Not enough references to literature.

5/ Please post more foreign literature.

6/ This phenomenon also applies to tunnelling. Please include in the text appropriate references to tunnel construction literature at different levels (the phenomenon of subsidence on the surface is more visible due to the very small overburden).

7/ In the future, I propose simulations with more realistic overburden values and large depths of mining excavations.

8/ Please delete word 'condition' in the first column of Table 1. Number is enough.

All the best,

Reviewer.

No comments

Author Response

We have uploaded the response to Reviewer 1 to the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     Academic writing is not perfect. You have a lot of mistakes. You have to arrange the academic writing of the paper to be perfect.

2.     The title is not consistent with the objectives of the paper. However, I suggest changing the title to" A Numerical Simulation  of the Subsidence Reduction Effect of Different Grouting Schemes in Multi-coal Seam Goaves "

3.     Rewrite the introduction into three paragraphs: the first one for your subject, the second one for the literature review, and the last paragraph for the objectives and methodology of the paper.

4.     Put a new section " 2. Background" to illustrate the idea's significate concepts, and definitions, and preliminary to include all the definitions and concepts.

5.     The abstract and conclusion are not perfect. Rewrite it to be consistent with the objectives and methodology.

6.     You have to check the paper grammatically.

7.     Punctuation.

8.     In the paper, correct goafs by goaves.

9.     Put "," before and

10.You have to use only one style in citing the references, you have double-cited the references. For example, Wang et al. (2022) [1]!

11.In section 2, change the title to "Proposed Method"

12. Reconsider the keywords and put only keywords not sentences. Add numerical and simulation as keywords.

13." Calculations model" is not a suitable title in line  141.  I prefer to change to "Design of the Model".

14. Your paper is too long. You have to focus on the analysis of your results.

15.You have to refer to the equation as " Equation (no.)" where no. is the number of the equation and the figure as Figure no. and the table is Table no. For example Equation (1) or Equation (2), etc.

16. You have to discuss your results very well and compare you're and the section on conclusions should be changed to " Discussions and Conclusions".

17. You have to mention the software for plotting the figures.

18. Every equation in the line should end with "." or ","

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The paper needs checking the paper grammatically.

Punctuation.

Author Response

We have uploaded the response to Reviewer 2 to the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comment: The numerical modelling is best to be validate by physical model or secondary data, or any relevant case study data/results thus significantly increases the validity and reliability of the proposed model.  An attempt to compare the model input-output transformations to corresponding input-output transformations for the real system is much appreciated. 

Author Response

We have uploaded the response to Reviewer 3 to the attachment. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The corrections are good

good