Rainfall–Mining Coupling Effects on Slope Failure Mechanism and Evolution Process: A Case Study of Open-Pit to Underground Mining
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript investigates the process and mechanism of slope instability under the coupling effect of rainfall and excavation. It further considers the impact of slope angle on slope stability. The research content demonstrates a certain level of innovation, but the article requires additional supplementation and improvement. The manuscript could be reconsidered for publication only if the authors are prepared to incorporate major revisions. Specific areas for improvement are as follows:
1. Supplement similar material test procedures and data.
2. Supplement the physical model experimental process, provide photos of the failure phenomena.
3. Section 2.5.4. The experimental process needs to be supplemented with a table, which mainly includes different rainfall intensity, rainfall time, rainfall volume, open-pit excavation stage, underground mining stage and mining time of each stage. Drawing a table will make it easier for the reader to understand the whole process of the experiment.
4. Correct the symbols in Figure 10 as they are inconsistent with the manuscript content and conflict with Figure 13.
5. Lines 280~Line 282. Please explain briefly how the three-view stereo camera monitors the displacement change of rock mass.
6. The author is advised to provide an overall explanation in the discussion section regarding the settlement change of rock mass displacement from open-pit to underground mining under the influence of rainfall.
7. In the abstract, it is stated that the results also suggest that the UAV guides sample selection. Please provide the basis for this conclusion in the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
N/A
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
The authors truly appreciate the editor and the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript. We reviewed the comments and suggestions and have incorporated revisions into the manuscript. Hopefully, the revised version could satisfy the reviewers. Listed below are the authors’ point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. The revisions and new texts are highlighted red in the revised manuscript and this response.
Reviewers’ comments:
Reviewer #1:
The manuscript investigates the process and mechanism of slope instability under the coupling effect of rainfall and excavation. It further considers the impact of slope angle on slope stability. The research content demonstrates a certain level of innovation, but the article requires additional supplementation and improvement. The manuscript could be reconsidered for publication only if the authors are prepared to incorporate major revisions. Specific areas for improvement are as follows:
1. Supplement similar material test procedures and data.
- Supplement the physical model experimental process, provide photos of the failure phenomena.
- Section 2.5.4. The experimental process needs to be supplemented with a table, which mainly includes different rainfall intensity, rainfall time, rainfall volume, open-pit excavation stage, underground mining stage and mining time of each stage. Drawing a table will make it easier for the reader to understand the whole process of the experiment.
- Correct the symbols in Figure 10 as they are inconsistent with the manuscript content and conflict with Figure 13.
- Lines 280~Line 282. Please explain briefly how the three-view stereo camera monitors the displacement change of rock mass.
- The author is advised to provide an overall explanation in the discussion section regarding the settlement change of rock mass displacement from open-pit to underground mining under the influence of rainfall.
- In the abstract, it is stated that the results also suggest that the UAV guides sample selection. Please provide the basis for this conclusion in the manuscript.
Authors’ responses to the comments of Reviewer #1:
1, Supplement similar material test procedures and data.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented the test procedures and data for similar materials. Firstly, the primary constituents of similar materials consist of sand, lime, gypsum, a small quantity of mica powder, and borax. According to the test procedures, the coarse sand (60 mesh) : fine sand (120 mesh) : lime (600 mesh) : gypsum (800 mesh) ratio of 15:10:2:5 is thoroughly blended in a mixer to create a uniformly similar physical model. Herein the water content in this model is maintained at 1/7 of the total amount, while borax and mica powder are added at a ratio of 1/90 relative to the water content. The quality of different similar materials utilized subsequent to the completion of a set of physical models is illustrated in Table 4. Moreover, we have added the whole process of stacking physical models of similar materials.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 209~218. Through multiple experiments, the scheme with the smallest error from the theoretical value was finally selected. The main materials are sand, lime and gypsum, plus a small amount of mica powder and borax. In the similar physical experiment, the cementing materials are 60-mesh coarse sand, 120-mesh fine sand, 600-mesh lime, and 800-mesh gypsum. The design proportioning scheme is shown in Table 3, where coarse sand and fine sand are the main materials, and lime and gypsum can enhance the cohesiveness. Borax plays the role of retardation when making materials, and mica powder can play the role of filling during the air-drying interval when building the model. The amount of water is 1/7 of the total amount, and the borax and mica powder are both 1/90 of the water amount.
As shown in Line 223.
Table 3. Main material proportioning.
|
Lithology |
Proportion |
|||
|
Phyllite |
Coarse sand |
Fine sand |
Lime |
Gypsum |
|
15 |
10 |
2 |
5 |
|
As shown in Line 224.
Table 4. Different material proportioning.
|
Material |
Coarse sand/kg |
Fine sand/kg |
Lime/kg |
Gypsum/kg |
Water/kg |
Borax/g |
Mica powder/g |
|
Q |
237 |
158 |
31.60 |
79 |
72.22 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
As shown in Lines 260~270. The making procedure of the large-scale slope model is: (1) mark the model size and sensor location on the glass wall of the model box; (2) weigh the different materials and pour into the blender to mix thoroughly; (3) install the baffle (length × width × height = 160 cm × 3 cm × 30 cm), inject the mixed material from bottom to top and compacted; (4) when the mixture is filled with each layer of baffle height, sprinkle a layer of mica powder and let dry for 1 to 2 d; (5) continue installing the baffle and inject the mixture, embedding the water content and pore water pressure sensors (Figure 7(b), Figure 7(c)); (6) as the physical model is stacked to the fourth layer of baffle, the initial crack FH1 is prefabricated (Figure 7(a)); (7) after drying the model for 20 d, remove the baffle and drying it for another 3 to 5 d; and (8) install and debug the three-view stereo camera and data acquisition device to carry out experiments (Figure 7(f)).
2, Supplement the physical model experimental process, provide photos of the failure phenomena.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented the similar physical model experiment process and provided photographs of the failure phenomena of rock masses under the rainfall-mining coupling.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 260~270. The making procedure of the large-scale slope model is: (1) mark the model size and sensor location on the glass wall of the model box; (2) weigh the different materials and pour into the blender to mix thoroughly; (3) install the baffle (length × width × height = 160 cm × 3 cm × 30 cm), inject the mixed material from bottom to top and compacted; (4) when the mixture is filled with each layer of baffle height, sprinkle a layer of mica powder and let dry for 1 to 2 d; (5) continue installing the baffle and inject the mixture, embedding the water content and pore water pressure sensors (Figure 7(b), Figure 7(c)); (6) as the physical model is stacked to the fourth layer of baffle, the initial crack FH1 is prefabricated (Figure 7(a)); (7) after drying the model for 20 d, remove the baffle and drying it for another 3 to 5 d; and (8) install and debug the three-view stereo camera and data acquisition device to carry out experiments (Figure 7(f)). As shown in Lines 586-612. In the physical model experiment conducted at angles of 45°, 55°, and 65°, the evolution characteristics of various rock instability fractures were observed. The types of fractures varied across different stages of the experiment, with some cracks even forming collapse regions post-development and penetration. The calibration of these fracture networks, as depicted in Figure 23, demonstrates that open-pit slope mining has minimal impact on underground space with virtually no occurrence of cracks. However, the stress arch mechanism may induce vertical cracks at the periphery of the under- ground mine room (Figure 23(a), Figure 23(g)). Due to the small vertical displacement of overlying rock (Figures 15-17), the degree of damage is small, thus fewer separation cracks are generated. Herein, the 55° slope model, exhibits no separation cracks; however, the vertical cracks at the periphery of the mine room evolve into arc cracks (Figure 23(d)). As entering the pillar mining stage, the vertical displacement of overlying rock intensifies (see Figures 18-20). This stage is characterized by a high occurrence of separation cracks, with branching cracks extending around them (Figure 23(b), Figure 23(h)). The branching cracks generated by the separation cracks at different positions are interconnected (Figure 23(h)), resulting in partial shedding of the rock epidermis. During the continuous pillar mining stage, these interconnected separation cracks will persist in developing and collapsing (Figure 23(c), Figure 23(f)), resulting in the generation of new separation fractures in distant overlying rocks. Moreover, after the complet- ion of the experiment, the separation cracks reached a state of equilibrium and did not undergo further collapse. However, some micro branching cracks would emerge in their vicinity (Figure 23(i)).
Figure 23. Evolution characteristics of rock masses instability fractures in different periods. (a) F6 mining completed (45°); (b) Z3 mining completed (45°); (c) L2 mining completed (45°); (d) Z1 mining completed (55°); (e) L1 mining completed (55°); (f) L2 mining completed (55°); (g) F6 mining completed (65°); (h) Z2 mining completed (65°); (i) L2 mining completed (65°).
3, Section 2.5.4. The experimental process needs to be supplemented with a table, which mainly includes different rainfall intensity, rainfall time, rainfall volume, open-pit excavation stage, underground mining stage and mining time of each stage. Drawing a table will make it easier for the reader to understand the whole process of the experiment.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented a table with different rainfall intensity, duration of rainfall, amount of rainfall, open-pit excavation stage, underground mining stage and mining time of each stage.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 334-336.
Table 5. Experimental scheme.
|
Similar physical models |
Mining stage |
Rainfall intensity (mm/h) |
Mining area |
*RMC time (min) |
*IR time (min) |
Total time (h) |
|
Slope height = 200 m Slope angle = 45°/55°/65° |
Open-pit mining |
10 |
Ore body |
60 |
0 |
1 |
|
Underground mining |
20 |
F1, F2 |
5 |
/ |
0.75 |
|
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
F3, F4 |
5 |
/ |
|||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
F5, F6 |
5 |
/ |
|||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
Z1 |
5 |
/ |
0.75 |
||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
Z2 |
5 |
/ |
|||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
Z3 |
5 |
/ |
|||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
L1 |
5 |
/ |
0.5 |
||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
|||
|
20 |
L2 |
5 |
/ |
|||
|
40 |
Ore body |
/ |
10 |
*Notes: The acronyms RMC and IR represent Rainfall-mining coupling and Independent rainfall, respectively.
As shown in Line 344. The specific experimental scheme is as shown in Table 5.
4, Correct the symbols in Figure 10 as they are inconsistent with the manuscript content and conflict with Figure 13.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The symbols depicted in Figure 10 are accurate, and the content presented in Figure 10 aligns with the information provided in the article. However, there exists an inconsistency between the marking symbols used for monitoring points in Figure 9 and Figure 13, which has been rectified by addressing this specific error.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 307-308.
Figure 9. Layout of monitoring points.
As shown in Lines 424-425.
Figure 13. Layout of displacement measuring lines.
5, Lines 280~Line 282. Please explain briefly how the three-view stereo camera monitors the displacement change of rock mass.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have briefly explained how the three-view stereo camera can monitor rock mass displacement changes. By setting the relation between object distance and pixel focal length, the three-view stereo camera can calculate the change of pixel point in the monitoring image, and then calculate the actual displacement change value of the monitoring point.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 434-441. According to the effective monitoring of the rock mass by the three-view stereo camera, we obtain the displacement value changes of each measuring point in the slope-cutting process, as depicted in Figure 14. This calculation method is based on the conversion relationship between object distance and pixel focal length. By setting the relation between object distance and pixel focal length, the three-view stereo camera can calculate the change of pixel point in the monitoring image, and then calculate the actual displacement change value of the monitoring point.
6, The author is advised to provide an overall explanation in the discussion section regarding the settlement change of rock mass displacement from open-pit to underground mining under the influence of rainfall.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented and improved this part in the discussion section.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 444-454. By comparing the horizontal and vertical displacement changes of each measuring point, it is found that the most affected measuring line in the open-pit mining stage is F, as well as the maximum horizontal and vertical displacement points are both near the working face of the F measuring line. They are 10.1 cm away from the starting point. Besides, the average horizontal displacement is -0.184 cm, and the vertical displacement is -0.096 cm. As the measuring line goes deeper, the displacement changes in each direction decrease in turn, and the measuring point closer to the interior has less displacement, which can be almost ignored. The maximum horizontal and the maximum displacement points both appear in the 45° slope model, and the 65° slope model changes less. The change value of the 55° model is similar to that of the 45° model. As shown in Lines 469-475. After the first group of rooms was mined, the overlying rock above rooms F1 and F2 subsided, and the maximum vertical displacement point was 10.1 cm away from the starting point, with an average vertical displacement of 0.265 m. The measuring points far away from the mining area also have a downward trend, as well as the vertical displacement of each measuring point on the measuring line is inversely proportional to the distance between the measuring line and the mining area. As shown in Lines 489-492. As the second group of rooms were mined, the measuring points above them had a slight tendency to move to the left, and the maximum horizontal displacement point appeared 56.3 cm away from the starting point on the A measuring line, which is above the pillar Z2, with an average maximum horizontal displacement of -0.26 mm. As shown in Lines 512-519. Compared with the first and second groups of mining, the horizontal displacement has a larger change, which indicates that the mining of the third group formed a new stress balance inside the model. The maximum horizontal displacement is 17.1 cm away from the starting point on the A measuring line, with an average of -0.47 mm, which increases by 1.04 times compared with the second group. The measuring points above the mine rooms F5 and F6 moved to the left, and the measuring points farther away from the starting point moved significantly to the left compared with the second group, with an average displacement of -0.24 mm. As shown in Lines 535-549. Since Z1 is located between the mine rooms F1 and F2, it plays a supporting role. After the mining operation, the area above pillar Z1 experienced significant subsidence due to gravitational forces, while the measuring points located further away from the goaf exhibited comparatively smaller displacements, leading to interlayer fractures. The maximum displacement point is on the A measuring line and is 17.1 cm away from the starting point, with an average vertical displacement of -1.772 cm. When the Z2 pillar was mined, only the continuous pillar L1 remained in the area to provide support. It can be found that the measuring points above L1 sank slightly, about -0.11 cm and that the measuring points above Z2 sank significantly. However, the displacement is lower than that above Z1, with an average of -1.643 cm. At the same time, persistent fractures and partial collapse occurred in the overlying rock area. After the Z3 pillar was mined, the measuring points that are 95.5 cm away from the starting point have large displacements, with an average of -1.36 cm. After the continuous pillar L2 was loaded, the measuring points above it sank slightly, about -0.09 cm. Compared with the mining of the Z1 and Z2 pillars, its drop is less, reducing by about 0.13 cm. As shown in Lines 563-569. After the continuous pillars L1 and L2 were mined, the overlying rock area lost its support completely. Thus, the overlying rock collapsed, and the fractures developed rapidly, forming a semi-elliptical damage area. Here, the vertical displacement of each model under the mining of the continuous pillars L1 and L2 is depicted in Figure 21 and Figure 22. After the continuous pillar L1 was mined, the A and B measuring line areas above L1 of the three slope models all collapsed completely, but the 55° model has a smaller change than the 45° and 65° models on the C measuring line.
7, In the abstract, it is stated that the results also suggest that the UAV guides sample selection. Please provide the basis for this conclusion in the manuscript.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. In the text of the manuscript, we have provided the basis for the use of UAV in the selection of study areas. The fractured rock mass area is identified through UAV monitoring during the process of geological survey and selection of rock sample sites, in order to avoid such areas and ensure the drilling and acquisition of superior rock samples.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 117-118. Representative phyllite samples were selected from the field, utilizing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to avoid the broken rock mass area.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript explores the influence of rainfall on slope failure mechanisms through 1-G model tests. While the study presents a challenging analysis, it only briefly mentions the differences observed among cases in the test results without providing a thorough discussion. For instance, the interaction between pore water pressure and deformation resulting from excavation lacks clear explanation. The excavation procedure is also inadequately explained in a reader-friendly manner, making it challenging to visualize the process during the tests. The following recommendations aim to enhance the manuscript's value:
1) The meaning of "h" in Eq. (1) is not explained. Are "L" and "h" interchangeable terms?
2) The determination of "C" and "fai" for the joint surface, as well as the method for obtaining their values, lacks clarity in the text.
3) The rationale behind reducing the parameters derived from the tests is not easily comprehensible. Please provide a clearer explanation.
4) It is unclear whether the similarity value meets the criteria of the similarity rule. Please elaborate on this justification.
5) The excavation process in underground mining should be elucidated with the aid of photographs and additional figures. This procedure significantly influences the deformation mode. Could you please provide more details regarding drainage during the excavation process?
6) In Figure 13, it would be beneficial to include additional information such as the distance and height of each measuring point.
7) Is the "starting point" synonymous with the initial excavation point? Using consistent terminology would enhance clarity.
8) Drawing displacement and strain contours based on the displacement data at each stage would provide visual insight into the mechanics.
9) The observation of minimal deformation in the case of a 55-degree slope is intriguing. This phenomenon could potentially be attributed to the coupling effect of stress release during open-pit excavation and self-weight instability during underground mining. Further discussion on the strain distribution mentioned earlier is essential to augment the significance of these series of model tests.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers:
The authors truly appreciate the editor and the reviewers’ comments on the manuscript. We reviewed the comments and suggestions and have incorporated revisions into the manuscript. Hopefully, the revised version could satisfy the reviewers. Listed below are the authors’ point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments. The revisions and new texts are highlighted red in the revised manuscript and this response.
Reviewer #2:
The manuscript explores the influence of rainfall on slope failure mechanisms through 1-G model tests. While the study presents a challenging analysis, it only briefly mentions the differences observed among cases in the test results without providing a thorough discussion. For instance, the interaction between pore water pressure and deformation resulting from excavation lacks clear explanation. The excavation procedure is also inadequately explained in a reader-friendly manner, making it challenging to visualize the process during the tests. The following recommendations aim to enhance the manuscript's value:
1) The meaning of "h" in Eq. (1) is not explained. Are "L" and "h" interchangeable terms?
2) The determination of "C" and "fai" for the joint surface, as well as the method for obtaining their values, lacks clarity in the text.
3) The rationale behind reducing the parameters derived from the tests is not easily comprehensible. Please provide a clearer explanation.
4) It is unclear whether the similarity value meets the criteria of the similarity rule. Please elaborate on this justification.
5) The excavation process in underground mining should be elucidated with the aid of photographs and additional figures. This procedure significantly influences the deformation mode. Could you please provide more details regarding drainage during the excavation process?
6) In Figure 13, it would be beneficial to include additional information such as the distance and height of each measuring point.
7) Is the "starting point" synonymous with the initial excavation point? Using consistent terminology would enhance clarity.
8) Drawing displacement and strain contours based on the displacement data at each stage would provide visual insight into the mechanics.
9) The observation of minimal deformation in the case of a 55-degree slope is intriguing. This phenomenon could potentially be attributed to the coupling effect of stress release during open-pit excavation and self-weight instability during underground mining. Further discussion on the strain distribution mentioned earlier is essential to augment the significance of these series of model tests.
Authors’ responses to the comments of Reviewer #2:
1, The meaning of "h" in Eq. (1) is not explained. Are "L" and "h" interchangeable terms?
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. The occurrence of an error during the writing process necessitates replacing the "L" in the interpretation of Eq. (1) with "h". We have successfully rectified this preexisting issue.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 134-135. where, pt is the load at the time of failure of the rock sample, N; D is the diameter of the sample, mm; and h is the height of the sample, mm.
2, The determination of "C" and "fai" for the joint surface, as well as the method for obtaining their values, lacks clarity in the text.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented the determination of joint surfaces "C" and "Φ" and their value methods.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 164-166. Among them, the determination of joint surface "C" and "Φ" and their value methods were calculated by the peak shear strength equation with three- dimensional joint morphology parameters proposed by Xia et al [54]. As shown in Lines 791-792. Xia, C.; Tang, Z.; Xiao, W.; Song, Y. New Peak Shear Strength Criterion of Rock Joints Based on Quantified Surface Description. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 387‒400.
3, The rationale behind reducing the parameters derived from the tests is not easily comprehensible. Please provide a clearer explanation.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have revised the original sentence for better understanding. In detail, we changed the proportional reduction to the weakening treatment.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 174-176. Thus, the measured rock mechanical parameters are weakened by the Hoek-Brown equation [36‒40], and the weakened results are as shown in Table 2.
4, It is unclear whether the similarity value meets the criteria of the similarity rule. Please elaborate on this justification.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have explained this part in detail. The similarity value adheres to the standard of the similarity rule, as the principle of similarity in similar model testing primarily necessitates that the geometric dimensions, material properties, initial conditions, and boundary conditions of both prototype and model parts are comparable. Furthermore, it is imperative for the elastic-plastic state and failure state to satisfy the principles of similarity. This is mainly solved by the combination of equilibrium equation, geometric equation, physical equation, stress boundary condition and displacement boundary condition. This part of theoretical calculation is reflected in our previous research, please refer to the reference [22].
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 190-194. In addition to the boundary and initial conditions, the physical model parameters must satisfy the similarity criteria. The subscript p denotes the similarity simulation prototype parameters, and m denotes the similarity simulation model parameters. According to the engineering geological investigation and existing conditions, the similarity coefficients were determined as follows [22]. As shown in Lines 729-730. Li, Q.; Song, D.; Yuan, C.; Nie, W. An image recognition method for the deformation area of open-pit rock slopes under variable rainfall. Measurement 2022, 188, 110544.
5, The excavation process in underground mining should be elucidated with the aid of photographs and additional figures. This procedure significantly influences the deformation mode. Could you please provide more details regarding drainage during the excavation process?
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented and analyzed the failure figures under different slope angle models in the process of underground mining. Moreover, we have supplemented the drainage during the rainfall-excavation process.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 586-612. In the physical model experiment conducted at angles of 45°, 55°, and 65°, the evolution characteristics of various rock instability fractures were observed. The types of fractures varied across different stages of the experiment, with some cracks even forming collapse regions post-development and penetration. The calibration of these fracture networks, as depicted in Figure 23, demonstrates that open-pit slope mining has minimal impact on underground space with virtually no occurrence of cracks. However, the stress arch mechanism may induce vertical cracks at the periphery of the under- ground mine room (Figure 23(a), Figure 23(g)). Due to the small vertical displacement of overlying rock (Figures 15-17), the degree of damage is small, thus fewer separation cracks are generated. Herein, the 55° slope model, exhibits no separation cracks; however, the vertical cracks at the periphery of the mine room evolve into arc cracks (Figure 23(d)). As entering the pillar mining stage, the vertical displacement of overlying rock intensifies (see Figures 18-20). This stage is characterized by a high occurrence of separation cracks, with branching cracks extending around them (Figure 23(b), Figure 23(h)). The branching cracks generated by the separation cracks at different positions are interconnected (Figure 23(h)), resulting in partial shedding of the rock epidermis. During the continuous pillar mining stage, these interconnected separation cracks will persist in developing and collapsing (Figure 23(c), Figure 23(f)), resulting in the generat- ion of new separation fractures in distant overlying rocks. Moreover, after the complet- ion of the experiment, the separation cracks reached a state of equilibrium and did not undergo further collapse. However, some micro branching cracks would emerge in their vicinity (Figure 23(i)).
Figure 23. Evolution characteristics of rock masses instability fractures in different periods. (a) F6 mining completed (45°); (b) Z3 mining completed (45°); (c) L2 mining completed (45°); (d) Z1 mining completed (55°); (e) L1 mining completed (55°); (f) L2 mining completed (55°); (g) F6 mining completed (65°); (h) Z2 mining completed (65°); (i) L2 mining completed (65°).
As shown in Lines 345-348. The synchronous process of rainfall and mining results in the continuous discharge of rainwater from the drainage pipeline of the model box, flowing outside the rock mass and infiltrating into it. Throughout the entire experiment, there is no accumulation of rainwater, indicating a well-functioning drainage system.
6, In Figure 13, it would be beneficial to include additional information such as the distance and height of each measuring point.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have added the vertical distance data of the monitoring point from the mining area to Figure 13.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 424-425.
Figure 13. Layout of displacement measuring lines.
7, Is the "starting point" synonymous with the initial excavation point? Using consistent terminology would enhance clarity.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have modified the "Initial excavation point" in Figure 13 to "Starting point" to match the content of the text.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 424-425.
Figure 13. Layout of displacement measuring lines.
8, Drawing displacement and strain contours based on the displacement data at each stage would provide visual insight into the mechanics.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. After analyzing the displacement changes of rock masses in each stage, we have added the evolution characteristics of rock masses subsidence cracks under different slope angle models, and further highlighted the deformation characteristics of rock masses under the coupling of rainfall and mining. Therefore, we think that drawing the displacement and strain contours will make the paper too long, which is not conducive to readers' reading.
>Implemented: As shown in Figure 23.
9, The observation of minimal deformation in the case of a 55-degree slope is intriguing. This phenomenon could potentially be attributed to the coupling effect of stress release during open-pit excavation and self-weight instability during underground mining. Further discussion on the strain distribution mentioned earlier is essential to augment the significance of these series of model tests.
>Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have given an explanation for your suggestion. This paper mainly analyzes the evolution mechanism of displacement and settlement deformation of rock mass under the coupling effect of rainfall and mining, and considers the influences of different mining methods and different slope angle modes in detail. As for the change of strain under the supplementary 55° model you proposed, we are conducting research and analysis on this part in the form of numerical calculation of MatDEM discrete elements. We believe that it is difficult to give the change rule of strain in the current way of pure physical experiments. Therefore, in the future, the fracture evolution and instability mechanism of rock mass under the coupling of rainfall and mining will be comprehensively analyzed by means of in-depth discussion. We have already added this part in the conclusion.
>Implemented: As shown in Lines 654-659. In our future plans, we will extensively employ MatDEM discrete element numerical simulation calculations to investigate the fracture evolution characteristics and instability mechanisms of fractured rock masses under the combined effects of rainfall and mining. Additionally, we aim to effectively compare and validate these findings with results obtained from physical simulation experiments.
Special thanks to you for your helpful comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript. These changes do not influence the content or framework of the paper. We did not list here all of the changes, but we marked them in the revised manuscript. We appreciate the work of the editor and reviewers, and we hope that the corrections will be met with your approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best Regards
Prof. Xiaoshuang Li
xsli2011@cczu.edu.cn
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have well addressed my comments and modified the manuscript correspondingly. I have no more technical comments and I recommend it for publication in the journal Water.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough some points that have not been fully addressed, I believe that it has been revised sincerely to the extent possible.
