Toward the Optimization of Mining Operations Using an Automatic Unmineable Inclusions Detection System for Bucket Wheel Excavator Collision Prevention: A Synthetic Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, a decision support process based on Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) has been developed to assist BWE operator in avoiding collision when digging hard rock inclusions. This work introduces a methodology for hard rock inclusions detection and can contribute to the optimization of mine operations by improving resource efficiency, safety, cost savings and environmental sustainability.Therefore, this work has certain theoretical and practical significance, agreed to publish.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is very interesting and valuable, as it could provide various details and the solution of unmineable inclusions in the overburden zone of highwalls of open-pit coal mines. Geophysical methods were used for the direct industrial applications.  

The language used is acceptable and the authors arguments are very clear. In many occasions the comments and data provided by the authors is leading answering some questions to the reader.

The topic of this work is relevant and very important. The authors of the article have extensive experience in this area and focused on the new approach of mining engineering problem corresponding with EM sensor measurements.

Field studies and analytical methods are well documented and as the key of this research and contributions on the Bucket Wheel Excavator (BWE) – hard rock collision preventions are very significant.

In particular, multi-disciplinary approaches, the combinations of geophysical methods, a fuzzy inference system and mining engineering mind have been interpreted very harmoniously, mathematical models are well discussed and provide new insight in cost reducing open-pit operations. Scientifically high-quality detailed work and I recommend for publication.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Major comments:

1.      I suggest significantly simplifying the Introduction section, at least cutting off 1/3. This section now is over-detailed and lots of background is not necessary to put here, and can be more concise. It’s hard to quickly know what your key points are.

2.      I would suggest adding more advantages of your method through comparisons with other methods, and some potential weaknesses of your method, and separating the discussion from the conclusions. This can make your conclusions much clearer.

3.  Throughout the text, I suggest deleting the redundant text which doesn’t support your conclusions or over detailed text. Overall, this manuscript can be much further simplified.

 

Specific comments:

Line 16: Suggest changing “describes a proposed” to “introduce”.

Line 47: Suggest changing “uncertainty” to “uncertainties”.

Lines 50-51: Please rephrase this sentence “In this context, research trends in the mineral industry include mining equipment management”. It is hard to understand.

Lines 39-56; Suggest shorting this paragraph and making it more concise. You introduced what you did in the second paragraph, which shouldn’t be after a long first paragraph.

Line 65: Suggest changing deleting “deposits”.

Lines 65-74: Similarly, make it more concise and shorter. This part is not a key point of your research.

Line 141: Changing “decision–making” to “decision-making”.

Lines 158-162: Please delete this paragraph. You don’t need to introduce your outline.

Line 215: “PPI is calculated taking into consideration” Rephrase this sentence please.

Line 225: suggesting changing “input” to “inputs”.

Line 256: Either modeling or modelling, please be consistent throughout the text.

Line 290: Please label (a) at the up left of the figure, as (b) and (c). Check through other figure panel to see if those labelling are put at the relative same places in the figures.

Lines 309-310: Either “Figure” or “Fig.” in middle of the sentences, please be consistent.

Line 324: Please make the text and numbers in Fig. a, larger and readable.

Line 359: Deleting “reason”.

Line 452: Please make the text and numbers in the figures larger and readable.

The English writing is acceptable but the writing in the manuscript can be much more concise. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for accepting my comments. As you know a shorter paper but with clearer key points and more concise content is always better than a longer one. As this version of manuscript has resolved my main concerns, I have suggested the editor accepting it for publishing.

Best,