Three-Component Microseismic Data Denoising Based on Re-Constrain Variational Mode Decomposition
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
line 109: remove dot after goal
line 114: there is a miss information about the Dirac function
line 258: miss “a”, “b” and “c” in the caption in the figure 9
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our article, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction. Revised portion are marked in the article. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1."line 109: remove dot after goal"
Reply : The dot has been removed.
2."line 114: there is a miss information about the Dirac function"
Reply : The description of Dirac function has been added. This description is that "which indicates a unit impulse symbol"
3."line 258: miss “a”, “b” and “c” in the caption in the figure 9"
Reply : Those symbols have been added.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript introduces a new denoising method for three-component microseismic data using re-constrain variational mode decomposition. The introduction is clear and describes what is already known about various decomposition modes and denoising. The methodology section gives us the main aspects of VMD and the processing flow. The synthetic and field microseismic data are described adequately in the following two sections.
Lines 272 to 280 must go to the conclusion section.
The references are relevant to the subject and recent.
Overall the manuscript needs some major revisions and especially must see some typos in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our article, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction. Revised portion are marked in the article. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1."Lines 272 to 280 must go to the conclusion section."
Reply : Those sentences are used to analysis the effect of hodograms between the original method and proposed method. The last sentence was related to the conclusion and was repeated with the conclusion section. So, it has been removed.
2."The references are relevant to the subject and recent."
Reply : The most of references are related with the mode decomposition and publication dates range from 2016 to 2020.According to your suggestions, two extra article are added to the manuscript. These two article are "Peng K, Guo H, Shang X. EEMD and Multiscale PCA-Based Signal Denoising Method and Its Application to Seismic P-Phase Arrival Picking[J]. Sensors, 2021, 21(16): 5271. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/s21165271." and "Li L, Jin H, Chen Y, et al. Noise reduction method of microseismic signal of water inrush in tunnel based on variational mode method[J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2021: 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-021-02291-6.".
3."Overall the manuscript needs some major revisions and especially must see some typos in the attached pdf."
Reply : Thanks for your careful review again. We have made a lot of corrections to the above (but not limited to) typos and all tracks of correction have been marked in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a well-written research paper with clear and understandable language, clear figures and tables which represent accurately the results and the study design is appropriate for answering the research questions. Both abstract and conclusions are clearly written, giving an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin for the reviewer and the reader as long as it gets published and gets accessed to a broader audience.
Overall, the soundness of the methodology and the conclusions can be supported by the results, with a relatively novel method for increased noise removal from microseismic data. I really enjoyed reading the manuscript and I feel the joy to compliment the authors for their extensive analysis and their new ideas that can be adopted in seismic signal analysis in urban areas.
Therefore, I recommend the research paper to be published.
Kind regards
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our article, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction. Revised portion are marked in the article.
Reviewer 4 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript which, apparently, is a version that had already been reviewed. Previous Suggested changes are highlighted in red.
In my opinion, the manuscript can be published without any other changes.
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our article, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction. Revised portion are marked in the article.
Reviewer 5 Report
attached
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our article, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction. Revised portion are marked in the article. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
1. In the field data section, it would be great to add an example of 1D fiber optics DAS microseismic data and evaluate the efficiency of your technique in improving SNR in a sample DAS data set. For instance, the Utah FORGE data is publicly available.
Answer: The proposed method is based on the problems of the three-component record of microseismic monitoring, so it is not suitable for fiber optics DAS microseismic data.
2. Fig.9: is that possible to have the raw and denoised signals in the same graph?
Answer: This study mainly focuses on that the improvement of VMD using linear relationship among components. The corresponding process is not suitable for using EMD. So, it is not necessary that adding a comparison between EMD and VMD during processing the field data. Meanwhile, I have described the difference between EMD and VMD in the introduction section.
4. In Fig.4-6 you can use a shared x-axis (fig. below) to increase the visibility of the data.
Answer: I have modified the graphs with a sharing x-axis.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, I will like to thank you that you address every comment that I suggest to you.
Your manuscript is improved significantly.
The reviewer.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments on our manuscript. We have made some minor corrections. Revised portion are marked in the article.
