Understanding Secondary Fragmentation Characteristics in Cave Mining: A Simulation-Based Analysis of Impact and Compression-Induced Breakage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider the manuscript to be of high quality.
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for the positive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccording my opinion article “Understanding Secondary Fragmentation Characteristics in Cave Mining” Authors: Y. Li, D. Elmo, is original because gives model for bigger particles (1*1*1.5m) according to previous laboratory experiments I don` t have complaints about the used methodology. The references are appropriate, and half of them are from 2010 to today
Remarks
The authors mention that different rocks with same shape behave similarly (Line 89-90), and later state that intact volcaniclastic rock was used for the calibration properties of FJ-BPM model. It would be desirable to describe used rock in more detail. Whether it's a tuff (which can be crushed with your fingers), pyroclastic breccia, or something else (which can't be crushed with your fingers).
In the discussion, it would be desirable to compare the results obtained with previous data and enter a few references, especially in Line 623 - 627 where previous laboratory information with smaller blocks are mentioned.
In the conclusions, it would be desirable to emphasize the obtained results.
Abbreviations are given only once, and later the full name is not used, but only the abbreviation eg. Line 283, 287; Lines 300-302: 304, ... Please correct.
There are 19 figures and 3 tables in the article, which are not listed in the text. Please enter it in the text!!
Figure 2. Axis X – Please insert explanation
Figure 3 S.S. Narayanan, 1985 – please eject S.S.;And insert reference from b) Narayanan and Whiten 1983; Bourgeols 1993. please increase the font
Figure 14 – please increase the font; What is the meaning of histograms – please explain in the text of the figure.
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for constructive feedback. Please refer to changes made to the manuscript (submitted with track changes).
The authors mention that different rocks with same shape behave similarly (Line 89-90), and later state that intact volcaniclastic rock was used for the calibration properties of FJ-BPM model. It would be desirable to describe used rock in more detail. Whether it's a tuff (which can be crushed with your fingers), pyroclastic breccia, or something else (which can't be crushed with your fingers).
Response: Line 88-91 was a finding from FDEM simulation by Elmo et al. (2014). In this simulation, Elmo et al. (2014) found that different block shape and arrangement with equivalent initial size distribution curve would lead to similar final fragmentation (secondary fragmentation). The simulation was based on mine-scale simulation and there are several more factors during the fragmentation analysis. Therefore this study investigates the characteristics of single block fragmentation to obtain more insights.
According to Orrego et al. (2020), the host rock type consists of volcaniclastic sediments with monzonite and porphyry intrusions. Authors do not have reports for detailed analysis of the rock. It is expected that this type or rock is hard and brittle based on UCS (~160MPa) and mi of 17-18.
Action: We have added references in Line 424 for rock properties.
In the discussion, it would be desirable to compare the results obtained with previous data and enter a few references, especially in Line 623 - 627 where previous laboratory information with smaller blocks are mentioned.
Response: Thanks for you comments. As we mentioned already in Line 264-266, laboratory scale sample size in JKMRC drop weight test ranges from 13.2-63mm with average 38mm/3.8cm. It is apparent that the fragment size would be much smaller than 5 cm threshold used in this study.
In the conclusions, it would be desirable to emphasize the obtained results.
Response: The results have been emphasized already in Line 614-Line 636
Abbreviations are given only once, and later the full name is not used, but only the abbreviation eg. Line 283, 287; Lines 300-302: 304, ... Please correct.
Response/Action: Thanks for the comments. We have revised it.
There are 19 figures and 3 tables in the article, which are not listed in the text. Please enter it in the text!!
Response/Action: We have fixed link errors.
Figure 2. Axis X – Please insert explanation
Response/Action: We have added text to further explain Figure 2.
Figure 3 S.S. Narayanan, 1985 – please eject S.S.;And insert reference from b) Narayanan and Whiten 1983; Bourgeols 1993. please increase the font
Response/Action: The references from the original figure have been revised in Line 236.
Figure 14 – please increase the font; What is the meaning of histograms – please explain in the text of the figure.
Response/Action: We have revised the font size and texts in Line 511-515 to explain this figure.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article should be improved and resubmitted to the journal for consideration. There are errors in citing a bibliographic reference. The methodology section is also unclear and, as it stands, is not understandable to the reader.
The discussion should interpret the results obtained, compare the results with other studies and their implications, the contribution of the research, limitations, and future lines of research.
I consider the article unpublishable as it currently stands.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comment
Author Response
We thanks Reviewer 3 for their comments. In this paper, we use DEM and comminution theory to investigate secondary fragmentation characteristics and mechanisms. As we mentioned in the paper, secondary fragmentation analysis is mainly based on expert’s judgement and empirical rules. This is potentially a risky approach, since secondary fragmentation affects the material dry rush potential assessment and affects the operation.
Action: We have use the journal template and revised all links which appeared in the initial submission. Please refer to the revised paper (submitted with track changes).
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
Research on secondary fragmentation has been going on for a long time. Many scientists from different countries have published materials on their research. Including on modeling this phenomenon using the discrete element method.
Nevertheless, your work is worthy of attention. A thorough study has been conducted. The results are presented correctly. This may be an additional contribution to the study of the phenomenon of secondary fragmentation.
Of the comments, I would like to draw attention to the quality of the presented figures.
In particular, the information in figures 3(b), 4 and 14 is difficult to read. Perhaps the scale should be increased.
And one more thing. There are few works published in recent years in your list of references. To improve the quality of the article, it is necessary to make references to new studies. There are a lot of them on the Internet. It is necessary to assess the state of the issue on this problem at the present time.
Otherwise, congratulations on the high-quality research.
I wish you success in your future work.
Author Response
We thank Reviewer 4 for their positive comments. We have addressed all concerns in the revised version, submitted with track changes.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper seems to be well written and research seems to be well conducted.
Unfortunatelly, our reviewing process can not be done when the paper is full of misreferences showed as "Error! Reference source not found" phrases. Please correct this issue and resend what seems to be a very good paper.
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewer 5 for their comments. We have revised the manuscript and removed all the broken links. Please refer to the revised version submitted with track changes.
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have taken into account my previous comments on their paper
