Mining Ground Deformation Estimation Based on Pre-Processed InSAR Open Data—A Norwegian Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- well-structured manuscript
- my comments only concern small suggested changes:
o the abbreviation SLC used for sub-level caving is not used consequently throughout the text, besides that I don´t find this abbreviation optimal, because I associated SLC in the context of radar data with the S-1 product type Single Look Complex (SLC). But maybe it is only my opinion.
o Fig. 4: I would have liked a differentiation between the two ascending datasets in the figure
o For the geostatistical approach (OK) I would add the concrete variogram model parameters.
o “… and observation of horizontal movements requires decomposition of the LOS movement into vertical and horizontal components. “(line 380-381): the sentence suggested a bit that decomposition in vertical and horizontal component is possible with a single LOS movement, but therefore a LOS movement from ascending and descending orbit is necessary. Maybe this fact can be pointed out a bit clearer.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have provided our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
minerals-2221777-review
Mining Ground Deformation Estimation Based on Pre-Pro-cessed InSAR Open Data
The study is aimed at assessing the extent of mining terrain deformation caused by sub-level caving mining method. It is proposed to use permanent scatterer InSAR technique derived line-of-sight movements data provided by public web service and geographic information system spatial interpolation methods. This research work is relatively complete and innovative and can be published after minor revision. Some suggestions are as follows:
1. As this is a case study, it is suggested to add “a case study” to the title.
2. The authors cite a large number of references, and should carefully check whether the manuscript corresponds to the front and back, according to the publication format of Journal. Some works maybe helpful, such as: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10230-022-00886-3, https://doi.org/10.1109/MGRS.2019.2954824.
3. The author needs to briefly explain the engineering or environmental implications of these findings, as well as existing problems and future research directions.
4. The conclusion part needs to be rewritten to reflect the innovation of the research results.
5. Overall, this is an interesting topic to study. The authors also conducted detailed research and came to valuable conclusions that could be accepted after minor revision.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have provided our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is in my belief that this manuscript is an interesting study on the deformations observed in areas under SLC mining. Authors have done a nice work which I am afraid that is not presented as it should in it. A more through statistical analysis on “raw” LOS data should be done and relative data histograms should be added. Which and how many of these “raw” LOS data are used is not mentioned. Variograms needed for the kriging estimations are not present in the manuscript and it is not clear if a 2d or 3d analysis has been followed. The resulting estimated LOS surfaces cover less area than that of the “raw” LOS data resulting in a greater angle of subsidence. Proposed corrections and additions are listed below.
Line74: dip and DD of the orebody should also be mentioned here.
Line97: replace. with,
Line 77 – 81: a figure representing in 3D the mining method and the orebody could be added
Line 162: References like Journel, A. G., & Huijbregts, C. J. (1976). Mining geostatistics. Or Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation. Oxford University Press on Demand. sould be added here.
Line 210: In eq.2 variable bi is not defined.
Line 211: ψdi (radial base function) symbolism needs correction.
Line 234: needs a period (.) after …method.
Lines 242-244: a diagram with the validation results should be added here along with an appropriate analysis.
Line 249: Authors should add here a histogram of LOS movements with the values presented in Figure 4 (probably 1 for each dataset also if needed).
Line 256: The coloration chosen is not appropriate to understand the movement distribution (especially the last 5 categories in the legend).
Line 258: Correct the table numbers as: Tables 3 to Table 2 and Table 4 to Table 3
Lines 260 – 267: Variogram/Variograms along with its estimated parameters (table) should be added here since kriging technique is used. Here should also be mentioned if and how an anisotropy investigation has been done and if so the relative diagram (rose, variogram map, ellipsoid parameters) should be presented. The authors also are presenting 2 anisotropy axis and not the 3rd one. Does it mean that they did a 2d variography analysis or they missed the 3rd one?
Line 275: Authors should explain how/why did they end up to this ratio (2.25:1)? Why not 3:1 (900:300) using the maximum values that they estimated from variography?
Line 311 (figure 5): Figure’s legend “Estimated extent of continuous deformation zone in hanging-wall for track A102 with a) 311 IDW, b) OK, c) RBF interpolation methods” states that the CDZ begins right decide the underground excavations. This means that FZ (as stated in Figure 1) is assumed to have 0 length, or it has been unified with the CDZ. Please clarity which one holds true.
Line 311 (figure 6): Comparing Figures 5&6 with Figure 4 “raw” data points from the Northern part of the last one (with low LOS movement values, <10mm) seem to be missing here.
Figure 4 Figure 5
Did the authors used a cut off and left them out from the estimations?
If so 1. they should mention it, 2 they should explain and analyze the reason and 3 they should add a figure (similar to Fig.4) presenting the data they used for the estimations.
If not they should explain why all 3 models cover a smaller area of estimations than the real data.
It is not clear if surfaces presented in Figures 5 & 6 are 2d or 3d. A comment on this should be done.
Line 324: Figure 7 with greater resolution (numbers are not readable with zoom)
Line 351: It is not clear how the estimated angle of subsidence presented here, has been derived. The trace of this section should be presented on a plan view.
Line 360: Figure 8 with greater resolution (numbers are not readable with zoom)
Line 387: period (.) after … (UAV) surveys
Line 390: delete the 2nd period (.)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have provided our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript "Mining Ground Deformation Estimation Based on Pre-Processed InSAR Open Data" by Jan Blachowski and Steinar Ellefmo was submitted for peer review.
I read the submitted manuscript with great interest. The authors turned to a very urgent problem: analysis of earth's surface deformations on sublevel caving mining. The studies prove the possibility of using publicly available InSAR satellite data services.
Despite the importance of this study, the manuscript has significant flaws that need to be corrected. Correction of the shortcomings listed below must be done to improve the quality of the manuscript, enhance the ease of perception of the presented material and increase the interest of a readers.
1.) From my point of view, there are very few keywords. In addition, the keywords should be more direct and related to the content of the manuscript. Keywords enable the reader to quickly search for the necessary material and enable the author to popularize their research and increase interest and citations. But if this number of keywords satisfies the requirement of the journal, this comment is advisory.
2.) The abstract is not quite formed correctly. It is very blurry and framed incorrectly. It seems that the authors have taken certain phrases from the text and thus formed the abstract. The abstract should clearly indicate the purpose of the study, its importance for society (i.e. to characterize the problem), identify the methods and materials of the study, and the conclusions should be clearly and briefly formulated. There is no "starting point" in the abstract, that is, information about previous studies (one sentence is enough). From my point of view, in the abstract, such information begins with the statement: "Previously conducted studies have established that ...".
2.1) It is desirable to avoid narrative text in the abstract.
2.2) Try to use words and phrases: an analysis has been carried out; studied; developed; proposed; established and so on. It is advisable to start sentences in the abstract with these words and phrases.
2.3) At the end of the abstract, it is necessary to indicate the final result obtained by the authors, for example: A model has been developed that allows ...; A dependence has been established which is...; A pattern has been revealed...; An efficient system (technology) has been proposed, and so on.
The abstract should be revised.
3.) The manuscript has an extensive list of references (51 references in total). From my point of view, a very few references over the past 3 yeas have been analysed. I counted only 7 works, which is 12,5%. Papers of recent years prove the relevance of the research topic.
The list of references is intended to demonstrate the depth of the authors' study, the relevance of the material and interest of their research.
3.1.) The depth of study is demonstrated with the number of references – is sufficient.
3.2.) Relevance – with the availability of research in recent years – is not sufficient.
3.3.) Interest – with the availability of research by scientists from different countries - is sufficient.
The List of References needs to be completed.
4.) In the introduction when analyzing previous studies, the authors make inaccuracies or provide information that overloads the text and often their claims are not accompanied with evidence. It is important for readers to know the essence (main idea) of the research you are referring to when analyzing previous work. In the introduction, it is necessary to analyze the previously completed work and note what has been done, what are the shortcomings, and what has been done incorrectly.
5.) Also, I would like to note that some of the information in section 3.2 from line 177 should be placed in the Introduction section. Here, the authors conduct a comparative analysis of methods for studying earth's surface deformations, advantages, and disadvantages.
6.) It is necessary to avoid group references, for example: [15-18], [32-36] and [37-41]. From my point of view, allowed up to three; more than three references must be deciphered. Each paper you refer is unique and the studies you refer deserve more proper and careful review to demonstrate (and prove) its importance for the current research. It is necessary to demonstrate in detail the essence of each study and their need for your work.
7.) Considering the comments (3) and (4), I would like to note that the authors have very poorly disclosed the main subject of the study. A lot of work is devoted to control of the stress-strain behavior of rock mass during deposit development. In addition, there are many studies reveal the issues of assessing the earth's surface deformation as a result of underground mining.
For example:
7.1) Khayrutdinov, M.M.; Golik, V.I.; Aleksakhin, A.V.; Trushina, E.V.; Lazareva, N.V.; Aleksakhina, Y.V. Proposal of an Algorithm for Choice of a Development System for Operational and Environmental Safety in Mining. Resources 2022, 11, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources11100088.
In this study, the authors proposed an algorithm for choosing the development system that ensures the safe mineral extraction. The authors proposed a zonal division of the mass to determine the initial structure of a multi-agent system. Based on the initial coordinates, the location of the initial perturbation point (the beginning of destruction) in space, which is a conditionally static part of the system, is determined. The results of the practical implementation of the proposed mathematical model are presented and an algorithm is compiled. Strain changes and stress concentration are key criteria in the proposed mathematical model. The proposed algorithm makes it possible to determine the preferred deposit development system.
7.2) Rybak, J.M.; Kongar-Syuryun, C.; Tyulyaeva, Y.; Khayrutdinov, A.M.; Akinshin, I. Geomechanical substantiation of parameters of technology for mining salt deposits with a backfill. Mining Science 2021, 28, 19-32. https://doi.org/10.37190/msc212802.
In this study, the authors analysed the effect of underground voids on rock mass and earth's surface using FLAC 3D software with numerical modeling on finite element method (FEM). Contour graphs of stresses are constructed, and deformations are studied.
7.3) Bacova, D.; Khairutdinov, A.M.; Gago, F. Cosmic Geodesy Contribution to Geodynamics Monitoring. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 906, 012074. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/906/1/012074
7.4) Mikolas, M.; Mikusinec, J.; Abrahamovsky, J.; Dibdiakova, J.; Tyulyaeva, Y.; Srek, J. Activities of a Mine Surveyor and a Geologist at Design Bases in a Limestone Quarry. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 906, 012073. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/906/1/012073.
Papers (7.3) and (7.4) consider earth’s surface deformations monitoring: (7.3) – space monitoring; (7.4) - instrumental monitoring.
If the authors become familiar with the works presented in (7.1), (7.2), (7.3), (7.4) they will be able to properly form the introduction, enrich their manuscript with international research by scientists from Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Russia, Germany and demonstrate the depth of their material, as well as eliminate the remarks (3) and (4).
10) From my point of view, the conclusion is not fully consistent with the purpose and tasks of the study set by the authors in lines 61-69. In addition, Conclusion section is not fully formed correctly. Conclusion is summary of the authors’ study without repetition. Part of the material from Conclusion has already been placed in Results and Discussion Section. Authors repeat. Conclusions should briefly characterize the result obtained by the authors, for example:
As a result of the study
(1) the dependence of … was obtained.
(2) it was found that ...
(3) and so on.
The conclusion needs to be revised.
Summary: The authors of the manuscript submitted for peer review have done very good research. The chosen research topic is relevant. From my point of view, the manuscript can not be published in the open press in present form. However, corrections in accordance with my suggestions will significantly improve the quality, increase the value and the ease of perception of the material presented.
I think that serious revision of Introduction and References, as well as minor revision of Abstract, Spatial Interpolation and Conclusion might be sufficient.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have provided our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of my comments have been properly replied, yet I would suggest authors to add replies to Comments 14 &15 (modified properly) into the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript " Mining Ground Deformation Estimation Based on Pre-Processed InSAR Open Data. A Norwegian case study" by Jan Blachowski and Steinar Ellefmo was submitted for second review.
As can be seen from the submitted manuscript and the explanatory note to the review, the authors did a lot of work to make changes in accordance with the comments.
The revised manuscript is a completed scientific study on a highly relevant topic: analysis of earth's surface deformations on sublevel caving mining.
The revised version of the manuscript, in my opinion, fully satisfies the requirements of a scientific article and can be published in the open press.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find our response in the attached file.
Kind regards
Jan Blachowski
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
