Precision Rock Excavation: Beyond Controlled Blasting and Line Drilling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper seems to be a review paper of various modern methods in mining and excavation techniques.
The paper content is in my opinion well written and scientifically sound, however the conclusions are somehow not reflecting the paper content. The conclusions must summarize only what the paper has presented.
A discussion section will be more appropriated for what the authors have put in the current conclusion section. The discussion section should also help the reader to understand the paper goal and the diversity of the presented techniques. A table with pros and cons of each techniques will be helpful.
Author Response
We thank the Reviewer for his suggestions: according to them, the conclusion has been completely rewritten. The objective of the paper was highlighted, as well as the different techniques were mentioned, highlighting the differences in terms of specific energy and field of use. Finally, a table with pros and cons has also been added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article is interesting and deals with different aspects and types of rock blasting technology. It is based on case studies with very general technological information, typical and attractive for lectures for students or engineers. The authors discuss the advantages, efficiency, and other parameters (particularly the role of the presplitting technique) of the methods regarding to the specific expectations of the final effect and their possible application. This is a rather informative type of publication but not the effect of a typical research with laboratory, in situ or technological measurements and analysis.
General remarks to the manuscript:
- Table 1 and 2: Ec and Vc should be depicted in a figure/scheme
- Captions of Figs. 9 and 11 are slightly misleading. Please use only: “a” and “b” or “left” and “right”, but not both.
- 12: first letters a)…….; b)…….; c)…….
- In the paragraphs describing the presplitting technology, the initiation delay and firing order issues should be discussed as complementary and essential factors influencing the expected results (Line 261).
- The technologies presented in the manuscript are dedicated to different situations and requirements and are very difficult for comparison (which is partially mentioned in chapter5).
- Since lines 390: 1,…,5: start with block letters.
Author Response
The article is interesting and deals with different aspects and types of rock blasting technology. It is based on case studies with very general technological information, typical and attractive for lectures for students or engineers. The authors discuss the advantages, efficiency, and other parameters (particularly the role of the presplitting technique) of the methods regarding to the specific expectations of the final effect and their possible application. This is a rather informative type of publication but not the effect of a typical research with laboratory, in situ or technological measurements and analysis.
General remarks to the manuscript:
- Table 1 and 2: Ec and Vc should be depicted in a figure/scheme
Answer
I apologize to the reviewer, but it is difficult for me to insert a unique scheme representing E (spacing) and V (burden) in the two cases: the case of presplitting is only identifiable with the distance between the holes (spacing), and the burden is undefined, that is, it is not influential for the success of the operation (in fact it is not taken into account); in the case of smooth blasting, the burden is very limited (since the holes detonate last, after the production blast), but it is a function of the diameter of the holes and therefore varies in the range indicated in table 2. A single example can’t be very representative in my opinion. I have, anyhow, added a general scheme that shows the meaning of the two parameters. I hope it goes well.
2. Captions of Figs. 9 and 11 are slightly misleading. Please use only: “a” and “b” or “left” and “right”, but not both.
Answer
According to the reviewer's suggestion, the captions have been simplified throughout the paper. When 2 or more images make up the same figures, only letters are used.
3. 12: first letters a)…….; b)…….; c)…….
Answer
As for the previous comments, the caption has been simplified.
4. In the paragraphs describing the presplitting technology, the initiation delay and firing order issues should be discussed as complementary and essential factors influencing the expected results (Line 261).
Answer
In the paragraph pointed out by the reviewer, details about the sequence and order of the blast holes’ triggering have been added.
- The technologies presented in the manuscript are dedicated to different situations and requirements and are very difficult for comparison (which is partially mentioned in chapter5).
Answer
The reviewer is certainly right and we are aware that the cases examined are very different and applicable to different circumstances. There is no doubt that the extraction of ornamental stones is not comparable with the tunnel excavation by D&B, but the intent was to show the different possibilities and limits of "precision" excavation, while aware that the comparison can only be made in "similar" cases. Table 4, added to the text, offers a comparison, albeit qualitative, between the different techniques.
6. Since lines 390: 1,…,5: start with block letters.
Answer
Block letters were used.
