Study on Occurrence Mechanism and Prevention Technology of Rock Burst in Narrow Coal Pillar Working Face under Large Mining Depth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very iteresting article but conclusions seem to be too "modest". I suggest to expand them a little bit. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study presents a scheme to prevent the rock burst during narrow pillar recovery at large mining depths. The authors have generally performed a good job, however, some issues needs to be addressed.

11.      The authors need to clearly specify whether it is a case study or the results are generally applicable.

22.   Why did the authors use Mohr-Coulomb model in FLAC 3D instead of a nonlinear constitutive model? How would the results be different if the nonlinear model was used?

33.   What is the location of YHMK2?

44.      How was the microseismic monitoring performed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents an interesting problem. It concerns research on the mechanism of rock burst on the working face of a narrow coal pillar. The mechanism of the rock burst is quite well described. The described phenomenon and an attempt to solve the problem can be used in industry. Unfortunately, the paper is not written in a clear and transparent manner and needs to be changed.

In the opinion of the reviewer, the following elements of the paper should be improved or explained:

1)     the description of reference coal seam is accurate enough, but there is no information on the source of the data:

-        Are the data taken from literature or were they obtained in some other way?

-        Some plan or map is missing to better understand what the described coal seam looks like.

2)     The computational model is insufficiently described. The description should be extended.

-        The description of the layers in figure 4 is missing. What do they mean?

-        no explanation of what FLAC3D means

-        What software did the authors use for the calculations?

3)     There is insufficient explanation in Section 3.2. This section needs to be reworded.

-        No explanation of some symbols (e.g. A)

-        Some symbols are introduced at the beginning of a section but are explained at the end (e.g. m)

-        D is presented in line 209 but is already introduced in line 195

4)     The reviewer has serious doubts about the novelty that should appear in every paper. Only conclusion (3) indicates the application of the presented solution, but it is not emphasized enough in the text. The authors should change and expand conclusions.

Finally, in the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript requires improvements and explanations, and cannot be published in the Sustainability in this form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents a collaborative control scheme of "unloading-solidifying" to prevent the rock burst during narrow pillar recovery at large mining depths, in which the stress distribution rule of coal rock mass during the excavation and mining process is investigated, as well as the energy accumulation characteristics of overlying hard and thick roof structure. However, as for the innovation of this paper, the reviewer does not think there are enough highlights in this work to support this paper as a research paper, for the numerical analysis, there is no further novelty method proposed. The readers in this field may guess the conclusions of this manuscript without reading the paper. Generally, the manuscript is not well organized, and is not acceptable in the current status.

Some other comments are as followings:

1.The language needs to be well polished by a native English speaking.

2.The Abstract and conclusions should be further improved to include not only the qualitative evaluation but also the quantitative analysis.

3.The state-of-art of this manuscript in this field is not balanced,some more international papers published in recent years should be added.

4. The numerical simulation is not described in detail, such as the simulation procedures, and the parameters used in the numerical simulation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This is a very well written paper supported by a strong literature review and research. The methodology and data used are very well described and the results are well demonstrated and analysed. Clear figures and graphs. Conclusions are based on results. Few comments:

Line 18 Rewrite the sentence

Line 27 Rethink keyword mechanism. It seems incomplete.

Lines 72-80 It would be helpful to define some special conditions and complex conditions. Give more information about where you refer to.

Figure 4 What do the colours represent?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors corrected and completed the manuscript according to my comments.

Finally, in the reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript can be considered for publication in the Sustainability.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been carefully revised according to the comments. It can be accepted in the presented form.