Mathematical Programming Application in Sublevel Caving Production Scheduling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This Reviw type work is interesting, well structured and very well written, being an incursion in the specialized literature on the subject “mathematical programming methods applied in the case of sublevel caving underground mining methods”. Sublevel caving mining methods are the most efficient and high-performance mining methods used worldwide.

To improve the quality of the work, I recommend the following additions:

-At the point ”2. Sublevel cavind method ”, to present the most representative cases of application of the method worldwide and the technical-economic performances obtained;

- At the point ”3. Mathematical programming methods ”, for each applied method to present the optimal application conditions, advantages and disadvantages.

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions on "mining-1283321"

I reviewed the paper entitled “Mathematical Programming Application in Sublevel Caving Scheduling”. The authors reviewed so far proposed mathematical programming models related to the Sub-level caving method. Authors can find my comments and suggestions below.

+ The referencing starts with 3, it is not true. This is a common case in review papers since there are many references, please correct it.

+ “In such cases, underground mining methods would be a good alternative [3].” Do we really need a reference for this sentence? It is already a known fact even by an ordinary person who is not into mining.

+ “Originally, SLC was applied in weak ground collapsed when the timber supports removal.” This sentence is grammatically wrong, please check it!

+ The explanation of the sub-level caving method is extremely instructive, congratulations!

+ “Depending on the level of precision and time frames, a hierarchical process divides mine planning into strategic (long-term), tactical (medium-term), and operational (short-term) [18].” Something is missing in this sentence.

+ @ line 263: “compute” must be computer.

+ @line 315: “Deglegen” must be “Dagdelen”.

+ @Table 1: MIP, as I understand, is the abbreviation for mathematical integer programming. Please first give it in the text then use it in the table.

+ I have a recommendation for Table 1. If all these papers include fieldwork, you can mention also the mineral/ore which is extracted that would be more elegant.

+ @Table 1: “Degdelen” must be “Dagdelen”.

+ @line 381: What do you mean by “upfront development"?

+ @line 381: “In a smaller-scale operation, SLC can be utilized as a selective method with lower production rates.” Is it possible to use SLC as a selective mining method?

General comments: The paper can be useful by means of state-of-the-art knowledge of sublevel caving. However, an important part is missing. How will we use the information given in the paper? The paper must be checked by means of language use. Additionally, the usage of abbreviations is a bit confusing, authors must reconsider all of them from beginning to the end and use a consistent style. The last part of the paper must be changed into “Conclusions and Recommendations” or something similar. In the last part, the contribution of the paper must be emphasized and recommendations must be given. Therefore I recommend a major revision for this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made all required changes raised by the reviewers. The paper can now be published as a review paper.