The Formative Factors of a Rock Burst Based on Energy Calculations and the Experimental Verification of Butterfly-Shaped Plastic Zones
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript titled “The formative factors of rock burst based on energy calculation and the experimental verification of butterfly shaped plastic zone” studied the formation factors of rock burst. The paper is not clearly written to exhibit experimental design and results. The quality of presentation must be improved by major revisions.
1. The authors need to be meticulous in the submitted form of manuscript. There are many format ambiguities that greatly lowers the quality of the manuscript. They include but not limit to:
Line 88. Figure (a) cannot be found. Between Line 86 and 87, a figure was inserted but not illustrated. It was the same as Figure 1.
Line 84. Clarify MS, PRD at the first time of appearance in the manuscript. Please also check other abbreviations.
Line 123: Specify β.
Line 115-124. Many “FSSF” in the subscripts, please address.
In Figures: add more in captions to describe the x/y axis and what information it contains.
Figure 3 and 5: Align last two graphs.
Figure 8: Remove “…” if nothing is discussed
2. Figure 2: It is suggested to draw a 3D model, so the complete model and P2 orientation is accessible.
3. It was only discussed at P1 orientation of 200x200x1m model. Can the authors predict/add P2 orientation results as it has a different width?
4. Line 161-162: Please elaborate more on the statement: why some unit bodies absorb energy instead of releasing.
5. Line 170-174: Please specify how the three stages are determined. It is unclear to just list a P1 or η value.
6. What is the difference between Figure 4 and 6, and their corresponding paragraphs?
7. Figure 7: Discuss “pregnant, growth and upheaval period” in the text if they are included in the figure.
8. The abstract and conclusion parts were not well summarized. The authors simply presented that formative factors of burst rocks were studied, but did not clearly list out what they are, and no critical numbers (e.g. η of 2.5 / 2.75 / 2.93) to support.
Author Response
- The authors need to be meticulous in the submitted form of manuscript. There are many format ambiguities that greatly lowers the quality of the manuscript. They include but not limit to:
Response: Thank you for your excellent comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments:
Line 88. Figure (a) cannot be found. Between Line 86 and 87, a figure was inserted but not illustrated. It was the same as Figure 1.
Response: Sorry for the mistake. This paragraph is not part of the article and was forgotten to be deleted when borrowing the template from the previous article.
Line 84. Clarify MS, PRD at the first time of appearance in the manuscript. Please also check other abbreviations.
Response: Sorry for the mistake. This paragraph is not part of the article and was forgotten to be deleted when borrowing the template from the previous article (MS, PRD are the content in the previous article).
Line 123: Specify β.
Response: The content is added in the revised manuscript “elastic wave energy conversion coefficient, the value is 1% ~ 10%”.
Line 115-124. Many “FSSF” in the subscripts, please address.
Response: Sorry, and all the “FSSF” are changed to “PSSF”
In Figures: add more in captions to describe the x/y axis and what information it contains.
Response: Thank you for your excellent review. We have made a note at the bottom of the Figure 3 and 5: (the horizontal and vertical coordinates represent the width and height of the model, corresponding to Fig. 1)
Figure 3 and 5: Align last two graphs.
Response: We have made adjustments in the revised manuscript.
Figure 8: Remove “…” if nothing is discussed
Response: We have removed it in the revised manuscript.
- Figure 2: It is suggested to draw a 3D model, so the complete model and P2 orientation is accessible.
Response: Thank you for your excellent comment. We have modified the figure to a three-dimensional format as:
- It was only discussed at P1 orientation of 200x200x1m model. Can the authors predict/add P2 orientation results as it has a different width?
Response: Thank you for the excellent comments from the reviewer, but it should be noted that P2 is the intermediate principal stress and not our main research topic. Therefore, the model thickness is only 1 m and is not be considered as a key consideration. We hope your understanding.
- Line 161-162: Please elaborate more on the statement: why some unit bodies absorb energy instead of releasing.
Response: Thank you for the reviewer's reminder, so we have added the following explanation: “(it may be due to the fact that certain unit bodies tend to be subjected to more uniform forces, or the occurrence of tensile phenomena leads to a decrease in the calculated energy value)”.
- Line 170-174: Please specify how the three stages are determined. It is unclear to just list a P1 or η value.
Response: Thank you for the reviewer's reminder and sorry for our unclear description, so we have added the following explanation: (only describing the change in P1 is because the values of P2 and P3 have not changed in all mechanical states).
- What is the difference between Figure 4 and 6, and their corresponding paragraphs?
Response: Thank you for the excellent comment from the reviewer. It must be admitted that we accidentally placed some text twice during typesetting. The duplicate figure and text have been deleted in the revised manuscript. Please review and thank you again.
- Figure 7: Discuss “pregnant, growth and upheaval period” in the text if they are included in the figure.
Response: We have added the following content to the revised manuscript: “The entire process shown in the figure can be divided into three stages: pregnant period, growth period, and upheaval period, respectively representing the phenomenon of releasing energy from small to large, and then rapidly increasing.”
- The abstract and conclusion parts were not well summarized. The authors simply presented that formative factors of burst rocks were studied, but did not clearly list out what they are, and no critical numbers (e.g. η of 2.5 / 2.75 / 2.93) to support.
Response: We have optimized the abstract and conclusion, as detailed in the revised manuscript. In addition, we have added more explanations for the formative factors: “The PSSF that leads to the butterfly shaped plastic zone represents a dangerous state of deviatoric stress field, in which a small triggering stress can lead to large-scale energy release and rock failure.”
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper called The formative factors of rock burst based on energy calculation and the experimental verification of butterfly shaped plastic zone by Wenlong Zhang, Jicheng Feng, Jianju Ren, Ji Ma, Jianjun Shi, Junfeng Zhang. There are some major aspects I would like to highlight.:
1) The abstract should briefly describe the validity of publications, including the methods, analyses and results of the obtained research.
2) It would be useful to include information in the abstract as to what contribution the publication makes to science.
3) The paper should clearly emphasize what is the purpose and scope of the work.
4) The authors could add a paragraph with a brief description of the extent to which the presented research and results contribute to science.
5) Please, develop the description of the methodology,
6) The publication submitted for review resembles a conference publication,
7) The publication has an engineering focus and lacks basic science research,
8) The publication should be re-written and should indicate a specific research problem,
9) The purpose and scope of the paper should relate to the research, not the presentation of the device,
The presented conclusions may be of fundamental importance, therefore they should be presented in a better light and the author’s should emphasize the original research contribution. I believe, that suggested amendments will significantly increase the relevance of the publication and will improve it. After applying all required changes, the paper is suitable for publication.
Author Response
The paper called The formative factors of rock burst based on energy calculation and the experimental verification of butterfly shaped plastic zone by Wenlong Zhang, Jicheng Feng, Jianju Ren, Ji Ma, Jianjun Shi, Junfeng Zhang. There are some major aspects I would like to highlight.:
Response: Thank you for your excellent comments, and we have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments:
1) The abstract should briefly describe the validity of publications, including the methods, analyses and results of the obtained research.
Response: Thank you for your excellent review. We have improved and optimized the abstract section, as detailed in the revised manuscript.
2) It would be useful to include information in the abstract as to what contribution the publication makes to science.
Response: Rock burst is a worldwide scientific problem, and we have obtained its specific formation factors through energy calculation methods. Therefore, we have clarified the following significance: “The study obtained the formative factors of rock burst accident, which provides a new idea and reference for the research on the formation of rock burst.”
3) The paper should clearly emphasize what is the purpose and scope of the work.
Response: The reviewer's comment is very accurate, and we should indeed clarify the purpose and scope of our research. Therefore, we have added the following content in the last paragraph of the introduction section: “In order to study the mechanism of rock burst more scientifically, the energy conversion before, after, and during its occurrence is calculated from an energy perspective, which is an important research content in the field of rock dynamics.”
4) The authors could add a paragraph with a brief description of the extent to which the presented research and results contribute to science.
Response: Thank you for the reviewer's reminder. We have added a paragraph at the end of the discussion section: “This study obtained the energy values before and after the occurrence of rock burst through the innovative energy calculation method proposed. By comparing them with the actual accident energy, the energy cloud maps of different mechanical states and the relationship between released energy were obtained. From an energy perspective, the formation factors of rock burst were clarified, and the importance of deviatoric stress in PSSF was emphasized. The minimum triggering stress value required to reach the critical value under different PSSFs was obtained, and the butterfly shaped plastic zone shape formed by deviatoric stress field was preliminarily verified at the laboratory scale. This study provides a new approach for studying the mechanism of rock dynamic disasters and lays a certain foundation for monitoring and warning butterfly shaped plastic zones.”
5) Please, develop the description of the methodology,
Response: Thank you for the excellent comments from the reviewer. We have added the aforementioned content in the method section and optimized some details. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. The added content is as follows: “Rock burst accidents occur in rock masses, but rock masses are often relatively large and difficult to study through mechanical models and analysis. So, this study narrowed down the scope of the study and reflected big problems through small models. Due to the fact that regular knowledge is only obtained through model establishment and energy calculation, and the stress and situation of small model are less different from the actual environment in which the tunnel is located, the research method of the small model is considered feasible. In addition, considering the feasibility of the calculation”
6) The publication submitted for review resembles a conference publication, The publication has an engineering focus and lacks basic science research, The publication should be re-written and should indicate a specific research problem, The purpose and scope of the paper should relate to the research, not the presentation of the device.
The presented conclusions may be of fundamental importance, therefore they should be presented in a better light and the author’s should emphasize the original research contribution. I believe, that suggested amendments will significantly increase the relevance of the publication and will improve it. After applying all required changes, the paper is suitable for publication.
Response: This study focuses more on the scientific issues of rock burst, using methods such as numerical simulation, theoretical analysis, and laboratory experiments to innovatively obtain the factors and important reasons for rock burst occurrence, and has been validated at the laboratory scale. The scientific value of research mainly lies in quantifying the process and causes of impacts from an energy perspective, which belongs to scientific issues. It should be a conventional research article. The results of laboratory research are aimed at verifying the state of the deviatoric stress field before failure and the corresponding butterfly shaped plastic zone morphology. Although it is a preliminary verification, it focuses more on feedback from the plastic zone rather than equipment.
We have clearly obtained the formation factors of rock burst through the method of energy calculation, but indeed we did not specify the original innovation in the conclusion section. Therefore, we have added the following content to supplement: "It is easier to achieve quantification and accuracy from the perspective of energy, and the observed factors of rock burst formation are clear, which has obtained scientific value".
We hope to receive your understanding and support. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is dedicated to relevant and topical subject – rock burst. The subject was studied in field (coal mine), laboratory and it was modeled. The study is well performed, reasonable and full. I have found only several minor flaws that do not affect the overall impression of the paper.
Something strange happened to Fig. 1. It has been duplicated and its first mention was not even signed.
Sometimes gaps are missing.
I recommend adding DOI to all cited references.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is fine.
Author Response
The study is dedicated to relevant and topical subject – rock burst. The subject was studied in field (coal mine), laboratory and it was modeled. The study is well performed, reasonable and full. I have found only several minor flaws that do not affect the overall impression of the paper.
Response: Thank you for your recognition of the article. We have made modifications to your feedback
Something strange happened to Fig. 1. It has been duplicated and its first mention was not even signed.
Response: Sorry for the mistake. This paragraph is not part of the article and was forgotten to be deleted when borrowing the template from the previous article.
Sometimes gaps are missing.
Response: We have made modifications to the gaps, thank you.
I recommend adding DOI to all cited references.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added DOI in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe quality of the manuscript has been improved by addressing most of the comments. However, two figures still need to be addressed for better understanding:
1. Figure 7: Remove “…” if nothing is discussed in TSF.
2.Figure 11: Improve the resolution as it is barely readable.
Author Response
1.Figure 7: Remove “…” if nothing is discussed in TSF.
Response: Thank you for your reminder. We have changed the "…" to "others"
2.Figure 11: Improve the resolution as it is barely readable.
Response: Thank you for your excellent comment. Due to our huge amount of data, the original Figure 11 was obtained through screenshots. We attempted to export the vector image but failed, so we deleted the original Figure 11 and related descriptions. Please understand. Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthank you for your comments.
Accept in present form
Author Response
Thank you for your guidance and recognition of the article.
