The Impact of Surface Water Seepage on Seismicity and Rockbursting in Mines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors in this manuscript have presented an interesting study on mines seismicity influenced by the surface water seepage/infiltration. They have used seismic data acquired in the study region in the past during various seasons to see the degree of weathering and its contribution to the seismicity. The authors concluded the contribution of the natural factors in rockburst hazards which are necessary for the mining planning. In general, the manuscript is interesting and has potential, however, in its present form, it needs several edits which are important for the international readership. The figures are not presented in a good-way, all figures can be better presented.

First, the abstract is not well-written, at present its not well-appealing. There is no attraction. Authors are advised to re-write the abstract include the core methods, findings and their concluding remarks.

Figure 1 can be better presented, please add the proper geographical location, geological provinces, and tectonic zones as your study included the contribution of regional tectonics.

Figure 3, No data is available for 2015-2016 but the bars show trends, could the author justify this? This figure can be better presented, it is suggested to keep the font and styles consisted throughout the manuscript.

Similar comments for Figure 4 and 5, these figures can be better presented.

The authors are advised to show us the spatial distribution of the seismic events with energy classification by plotting on the geographical/geological map so that readers can track and understand the extents of the seismicity. The current Figure 7 remains as Figure 7 (b) in addition to the above.

Line 11: Statistical analysis of the data shows (Table 3) that the cyclicity of geodynamic events in the studied area felt on the Earth surface is 3-4 years. I don’t understand this statement, could the author please explain and show on a figure?

I have seen number of grammatical errors; authors are advised to double check such and also write up should be in more professional and scientific way. Avoid industry jargons please.

Hope it works. Best of luck

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and remarks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sustainability

Manuscript ID: 1930046

The Impact Of Surface Water Seepage On Seismic-Ity And Rockbursting In Mines

by

Kozyrev, Batugin, Zuo, Zhukova

REFEREE’S COMMENTS

This is an interesting paper on a subject that should be of great interest to many readers. For location of comments, see the belows.

1. Title:
2. It could be more concise/compact.
3. Abstract:
4. The abstract should be supported by more quantitative findings.
5. "Ai"=?
6. Introduction:
7. This section could be organized in a much better way. One paragraph should point out one topic only.
8. The literature review could be strengthened. For example, see the paper Engineering Geology 203, 70-82 and many others available in the literature.
9. Last paragraph: The authors should clearly indicate the originality/novelty of their research.
10. Study site:
11. A location map would be very useful for the potential readers.
12. Refer relevant papers under the title of "1.2. A bauxite mine, Southern Ural".
13. Theory and methods:
14. Refer relevant papers for the Eq. 2-3.
15. Use "In-situ studies" instead of "Is-situ studies".
16. The plot areas would be better to be consistent with each other.
17. Results and discussion:
18. The authors should discuss effectively their findings with the results of other studies already available in the literature. Otherwise, it would be a kind of technical report rather than a scientific paper.
19. Conclusion:
20. The authors should strengthen the conclusions by referring the quantitative findings.
21. In General:
22. Quality of the Figures could be improved.
23. Language of the text could be polished.
24. Literature review should be extended.
25. Check out the details of the references cited.

Best regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and remarks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the analysis of the effect of surface water seepage on seismicity and rockbursting in mines and takes a fundamental approach for investigation.

The topic of the paper is important and requires investigation. The writing is good with relevant review of the current state of knowledge. Although the literature review could be improved (e.g., add a couple of more references related to previous similar work) and more critical discussion be added, it is in general acceptable. 

The figures and illustrations are relevant and appropriate. The data presented are useful.

This is amazing work. Thank you for your contributions.

I suggest publication as is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and remarks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

-