Numerical Computation-Based Analysis of Blasting Vibration Effects and Slope Stability in an Open-Pit Quarry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the demonstration of three aspects: (1) the eastside slope of the mine in the continued development and extension of the conditions, the displacement field and the quarry slope will occur landslide damage; (2) quarry slopes in the excavation unloading, the displacement field induced by the location of the displacement field area to meet the safety requirements; (3) mine production blast in the quarry slope and the displacement field area triggered by mass vibration to meet the relevant regulatory requirements.

 

 

For the solution of this problem, finite element based analysis of the slope region has been done.

 

Literature review and explaining the state of art on this subject are well-definite and clearly explained. The whole structure of the manuscript is well-organized.

 

However, before publication, the paper requires improvement on several aspects (Comment to article.doc. it is enclosed). Addressing these issues will improve the clarity, accessibility, and impact of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reading the manuscript titled “Blast vibration impact analysis and safety demonstration of the eastside slope and dump in an open pit”, I thought this article provides some valuable insights and analyses for the study of slope stability in open-pit mines. Minor Revision for Acceptance. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed, the detailed technical review comment is listed as follows:

 

1. The manuscript needs more careful and professional editing. For example, spaces should be used between numbers and units in quantitative expressions, such as “the slope is about 0~10mm.”, “with the bottom elevation ranging from -130.0m to -145.0m, and the top elevation ranging from +41.0m to +61.0m, and the height of the side slopes ranging from 172m to 194.0m.”, and elsewhere. They need to be revised.

2. Ensure that the structure of the manuscript is logical and well-organized, with clear sections including the introduction, methodology, and discussion.

3. The format of symbols used in the text should be consistent to ensure that the text is clear and unambiguous.

4. It is recommended that the strengths of this study be highlighted in the abstract section.

5. Whether the analytical arguments for profile 3-3 are sufficiently representative of the stability of the entire slope?

6. In section 3.5 there is only a presentation of test data, lacking the necessary impact analyses, which is recommended to be added.

7. The conclusion section should be linked to the results of the previous analyses.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of the work was to determine, through experimental tests and numerical analyses, the stability of a slope under blasting vibrations and the load of a dump. Three tests were performed along two measuring lines to determine the frequency and the velocity of the blasting vibrations. Also, numerical analyzes were carried out for the analysis of the slope seepage field and the impact of the dump on the quarry slopes.

The work is well structured, the work methodology is suitable for a scientific research work, but there are some aspects that need to be clarified / modified / improved. These aspects concern, on the one hand, the form of the paper and, on the other hand, the applicability of the result.

Aspects related to the form of the paper:

1.      There are many phrases in the work, which have a difficult content to decipher and understand (for example:  lines 68-69, 117-120, 131-137, 193-195, 195-205, 323 - 335 etc.)

2.      In the Table 3 - what is the coefficient R?

3.      Line 459 which is the meaning of the blasting vibration plasma ?

4.      Perhaps it would be necessary to change the title of the paper to better reflect the results obtained through the numerical analyses

 

Comments on the results

1.      Can the result be applicable in different open pit?

2.      Can the maximum segment charge be increased until it is reached the threshold value of the vibration velocity or is limited by other factors?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English have to be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Due to the nature of the simulation, the study is conducted in a limited environment, and the results of this paper do not know whether it is safe in mines in other environments, so I think further research in various conditions (climate, various topography) is necessary.

2. In the conclusion, the effect of blasting vibration on the upper part of the slope was limited, but it is judged that additional explanation is needed for that part.

3. Experimental data of explosion vibration were collected at several points, but the reliability of the experimental data is questioned due to the limited number of measurements.

4. The slope safety evaluation was mainly focused on explosion vibration and dump load, but it is necessary to increase the reliability of the research results in consideration of other factors (e.g., environmental factors).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes and additions made to the initial form of the manuscript are in accordance with the requirements/comments formulated in my review. Consequently, I agree with the acceptance of the article in its current form.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewers for your guidance in revising our manuscript, which will undoubtedly significantly improve the quality of our manuscript, and finally to the reviewers for their approval.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please add the answer of comment 3 to the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment: Please add the answer of comment 3 to the manuscript.

Response: Many thanks to the reviewers for your guidance in revising our manuscript, and based on your suggestions, we have added information about the choice of measurement points in the manuscript, as detailed below:

After the blasting vibration test data collection work was carried out, 3 tests were conducted along 2 measuring lines in the direction of the dump. Each time, 2~5 measuring points were monitored, and finally, 12 monitoring waveforms were acquired, including 10 valid waveforms. In this blasting vibration test, although the number of measurements was limited, the arrangement of each monitoring point was carefully designed with a view to obtaining the most representative results from the limited data. In addition, highly accurate monitoring equipment was used, and data was collected and analyzed in strict accordance with industry standards. The blasting vibration test data are shown in Table 2, and the velocity waveforms of the blasting vibration measurement points are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.