Numerical Investigation on Influence of Two Combined Faults and Its Structure Features on Rock Burst Mechanism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting article worth publishing. The relationship between the rock bursts and the deposit tectonics (faults) is well known, however, they should always be analyzed in local geological conditions. And that's what the authors did! 

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition of this work, and I will continue this research in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is a modelling study rockburst caused by combined (two) faults. The study is well prepared and presented however, modifications (major in some places) needs to be implemented before final production. The major issue here is that the authors do not pay much attention to mechanical parameters fed into the models. It is not clear whether all of them were assumed (based on Flac manual) or only for a fault. How were the strata parameters tested? What about the elastic parameters, what were the values used in the model, and how were they obtained? This part needs strong revision (detailed explanation). A more critical review needs regarding this part of modeling needs to be provided here so the reader is fully aware that the reliability of results is limited. Furthermore, please be more precise when it comes to stress presentation? Do you mean normal or effective? If no pore water pressure is concerned, please say so. Are the parameters drained or undrained? When it comes to general presentation then the abstract should include brief information on the aim of the study and a simple but precise presentation of the outcomes. Is line 23-29 showing the outcomes of the present analyses? In the introduction, there's no aim of the study presented, really. Please make sure you explain what is the contribution of the proposed study and why it's important to conduct it. Please expose more what's original about it, when compared with already performed researches. Please explain briefly, why the research is focused on analysing these particular types of faults. another major remark is if sections 4.3 and 5 really relevant? The paper presents already lots of data, the authors should focus on discussing. This section seems to start another study. Please consider excluding it for a separate publication. In its present form is not fully covered with discussion and analyses. These are only major comments, minor remarks are listed below and more ca be followed in marked copy attached.

l.13 be careful here, geological conditions does not always get more complex with depth (otherwise to stresses)

l.37 A reference presenting more of a review of such issues would be more appropriate here too.

l.89 So, shouldn't you refer to a slip fault, in the first place? Please try to be more specific here.

l.96 Please explain briefly, why the research is focused on analysing these particular types of faults.

l.112 tab. 1 please make sure there's no copyright issue here.

l.116 Probably more recent source would be more relevant here

l.132 Is the figure representing the conditions in Xinjulong? Please be specific.

l.150 It would be recommended to add the information how the data on seismic events was collected (for reliability reasons only)

l.170 fig 2 Each figure (Fig.2 , b.c.d...) should be referred to in the main text

l.171  Fig 2c is not referred nor explained in the text. Are they really necessary to be presented? Please give the location, so the reader does not confuse the sites and conditions (this comment concerns all the figures)

l.235 reasonable range this term is too general for scientific publication. Please be more precise, what range exactly?

Please address all the comments and introduce the amendments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We apologize for the long delay in preparing our revised manuscript. Thus far, we have revised the manuscript entitled “Numerical investigation on influence of two combined faults and its structure features on rock burst mechanism” (minerals-1476323).

We appreciate the detailed and useful comments and suggestions from you on our manuscript. On behave of the authors, I have revised the manuscript. Detailed revisions are listed point by point according to the comments and suggestions from you and the reviewers. Moreover, the specific revisions were marked in the annotated version of the revised manuscript ("Marked Manuscript")

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The current manuscript deals with rock mechanics on combined faults. The paper is very well written and well supported with rich literature. Moreover, the results have been comprehensively analysed and presented. The manuscript can be accepted in the current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition of this work, and I will continue this research in the future.