Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault

Chunlin Zeng; Yuejin Zhou; Leiming Zhang; Donggui Mao; Kexin Bai

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262243

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 16, 2021
22 Sep 2021 Decision Letter - Fabio Trippetta, Editor PONE-D-21-26499Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault PLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The reviewers have commented on your above paper. They indicated it requires some modifications in order to be acceptable for publication After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. If you feel that you can suitably address the reviewers' comments (included below), I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript. Please carefully address the issues raised in the comments. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Fabio Trippetta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019ZDPY18), and project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51874289).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: “This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019ZDPY18), and project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51874289).” We note that you have provided information within the Funding Section. Please note that funding information should not appear in other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019ZDPY18), and project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51874289).” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author “Kexin Bai”. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1.What is the study object of the paper? Working face or roadway? 2. The Abstract section is suggested to re-write according to the study objective. 3. Please clarify the novelty of the MS. 4. In physical model, why is there no roadway？If you study the surrounding rock deformation control technology of roadway, the roadway shoulde be arrangment in physical model. 5. In section 5.2, please check the reliability of result of 2.32m。 6. In Fig.5b, why two peak stress point with the No.7 205cm and the peak value of rear face exceeds that of front value? 7. What is the basis for setting the two support schemes for the roadway with different mining conditions in section 5.2. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is based on the theoretical analysis and similar material simulation test, the characteristics of roadway deformation, overburden movement and stress evolution in the process of working face fault advance are studied, and the formula for calculating the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is derived. The method is applied to engineering practice, which is well verified by field practice and has certain theoretical and practical value. However, there are still some problems in the manuscript, hoping to help improve the quality of the manuscript: 1.It is suggested to put "On this basis, the critical instability range of open-cut surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m" in the penultimate sentence of the abstract. Because the critical instability range of open-cut surrounding rock is obtained by inserting the parameters obtained from the simulation of similar materials into the formula. This order makes summaries more organized and readable. 2.The introduction part only lists the research status at home and abroad, but does not get its own understanding and views, and lacks analysis and summary. In addition, the literature tends to be old and should be supplemented with recent research results. 3.Equation (16) can be reduced to the equation with N, since we have set. 4.It is suggested to combine equations (20) and (21) into one set of equations. 5.It is mentioned in the overview of the working face that two faults are actually exposed, but this paper only studies the failure characteristics of surrounding rock over one fault. The two faults interact with each other during exploitation? Please explain. 6.The page 16, line 187, a force equivalent to the overlay load is applied to the upper surface of the model. Please instructions the thickness of the covering layer. What is the magnitude of the equal effect? 7.Please add a plan of the working face in the general section of the working face, indicating the position of the working face in the mining area, the fault position and the position of three measuring stations A1, A2 and A3, etc. 8.Fig.6 and Fig.7 please add the legend part to illustrate the meanings of different lines and marks in the figure. 9.Conclusions should be drawn back to the original text and it is suggested to indicate from which part each conclusion was drawn. For example, numerical simulation experiments show that overburden movement shows obvious "three zones......" 10.The format of 24 references is not correct. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r001
Revision 1
11 Oct 2021 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper. The feedback is very valuable. We have revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions and questions. All the modifications made according to reviewer’s comments are highlighted in yellow and using track changes in the manuscript. Our responses are also outlined below following your comments. I hope the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in our journal. Sincerely, Yuejin Zhou, Ph. D. Corresponding author for the manuscript Ref: PONE-D-21-26499 Title: Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault Journal: PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have tried our best to revise the manuscript and file according to the requirements of our journal. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. Answer: Your help is greatly appreciated. We revised the numbers for the awards. This research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019ZDPY18 to JYZ) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51874289 to JYZ). 3. Thank you for stating the financial disclosure. Please state what role the funders took in the study. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. 4. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed any funding-related text from the manuscript. 5. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have uploaded experimental data in the manuscript and set it as Supporting Information files. 6. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. I have set up one ORCID iD, and it is validated in Editorial Manager. 7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author “Kexin Bai” Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have tried our best to revised the manuscript submission data accordingly. Reviewer #1: 1.What is the study object of the paper? Working face or roadway? Answer: Thanks for your comment. The main research object of this paper is the roadway affected by faults in the mining process of the working face. 2. The Abstract section is suggested to re-write according to the study objective. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have rewritten the abstract section according to the study objective in line 11-29 of the revised manuscript. The abstract is rewritten as follows: “In the mining process of working face, the additional stress generated by the fault changes the law of roadway deformation and failure as well as the law of overburden failure. Aiming at the influence of the fault in the mining process of working face, this study introduced the Hoek-Brown strength criterion to analyze the stress distribution in the elastic-plastic zone of the surrounding rock of the roadway. And similar experiments under different engineering backgrounds were used to study the characteristics of overburden movement and stress evolution. This study shows that, compared with ordinary mining, through-the-fault mining causes slippage and dislocation of the fault, the load of the overburden is transferred to both sides of the fault, and the stress near the fault accumulates abnormally. The “three zones” characteristics of the overburden movement disappear, the subsidence pattern is changed from "trapezoid" to "inverted triangle", and the influence distance of the advanced mining stress on the working face is extended from 20m to 30m. The instability range of roadway surrounding rock is exponentially correlated with the rupture degree of the surrounding rock. On this basis, the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m. According to the conclusion, the bolt length and roadway reinforced support length are redesigned. Engineering application shows that the deformation rate of the roadway within 60 days is controlled below 0.1~0.5mm/d, the deformation amount is controlled within 150mm, and the roadway deformation is controlled, which generally meets the requirements of use. The research results provide guidance and reference for similar roadway support.” 3. Please clarify the novelty of the MS. Answer: Aiming at the impact of the fault on the roadway in the mining process of working face, this paper analyzes the elastoplastic zone of the roadway and the failure law of the overlying rock layer through a combination of theory and similar experiments under different backgrounds. This study shows that 1) The instability range of roadway surrounding rock is exponentially correlated with the rupture degree of surrounding rock. On this basis, the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m. 2) Compared with ordinary mining, through-the-fault mining causes slippage and dislocation of the fault, the load of the overburden is transferred to both sides of the fault, and the stress near the fault accumulates abnormally. The “three zones” characteristics of the overburden movement basically disappear, the subsidence pattern is changed from "trapezoid" to "inverted triangle", and the influence distance of the advance mining stress on the working face is extended from 20m to 30m. 3) According to the conclusion, the bolt length and roadway reinforced support length are redesigned. Engineering application shows that the deformation rate of the roadway within 60 days is controlled below 0.1~0.5mm/d, the deformation amount is controlled within 150mm, and the roadway deformation is controlled, which generally meets the requirements of use. The research results provide guidance and reference for similar roadway support design. 4. In physical model, why is there no roadway？If you study the surrounding rock deformation control technology of roadway, the roadway shoulde be arrangment in physical model. Answer: Thanks for your comment. In order to study the overburden failure law and the length range under the influence of the fault during the mining process of the working face, similar experiments were carried out by using the plane stress model. Since the roadway is in the same direction as the working face, so no roadway is arranged. We have added the description of similar experiment settings in line 180-183 of the revised manuscript. 5. In section 5.2, please check the reliability of result of 2.32m. Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have partially merged the formulas in line 175 of the revised manuscript, Modify “ The equation（21）” to “The equation（20） ”. and the specific calculation results are written in the file of“Responses to reviewers” 6. In Fig.5b, why two peak stress point with the No.7 205cm and the peak value of rear face exceeds that of front value? Answer: Thanks for your comment. Due to the activation of the fault, another stress peak appears in the vertical stress of the hanging wall of the fault. The hanging wall and foot wall of the fault are dislocated and separated, and the stress on both sides of the fault changes. During the advancement of the working face, the subsidence of the overlying rock layer changes from “trapezoid” to “inverted triangle”. A large amount of load migrates to the coal and rock mass of the hanging wall of the fault, causing the peak stresses at the measuring points of the hanging wall to be higher than that of the foot wall. And we have added relevant explanations in line 317-326 of the revised manuscript. 7. What is the basis for setting the two support schemes for the roadway with different mining conditions in section 5.2. Answer: Thanks for your comment. According to theoretical calculations and similar experiments, the instability range and influence distance of the roadway under the influence of mining and the fault have been obtained, and the bolt length and roadway reinforced support length are redesigned. We have added relevant explanations in line 367-370 of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is based on the theoretical analysis and similar material simulation test, the characteristics of roadway deformation, overburden movement and stress evolution in the process of working face fault advance are studied, and the formula for calculating the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is derived. The method is applied to engineering practice, which is well verified by field practice and has certain theoretical and practical value. However, there are still some problems in the manuscript, hoping to help improve the quality of the manuscript: 1.It is suggested to put "On this basis, the critical instability range of open-cut surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m" in the penultimate sentence of the abstract. Because the critical instability range of open-cut surrounding rock is obtained by inserting the parameters obtained from the simulation of similar materials into the formula. This order makes summaries more organized and readable. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have rewritten the abstract section and put "On this basis, the critical instability range of open-cut surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m" behind the conclusions of similar experiments, as showed in line 23-24 of the revised manuscript. 2.The introduction part only lists the research status at home and abroad, but does not get its own understanding and views, and lacks analysis and summary. In addition, the literature tends to be old and should be supplemented with recent research results. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have updated references in line 64 and 74, and added “These studies are based on the complex rock and soil environment under the influence of faults on the roadway failure. Due to the complex and changeable engineering geological conditions, the complex rock and soil environment and the impact of mining on the surrounding rock under the influence of faults are the main reasons for roadway failure. In order to ensure the stability of the surrounding rock of the roadway under the superimposed influence of faults and mining, it is necessary to study its failure mechanism, and then propose a reasonable support design.” in line 70-76 of the introduction section. 3.Equation (16) can be reduced to the equation with N, since we have set. Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have simplified equation (16) to the equation with N in line 162 of the revised manuscript. 4.It is suggested to combine equations (20) and (21) into one set of equations. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have combined equations (20) and (21) into one set of equations in line 173-175 of the revised manuscript. 5.It is mentioned in the overview of the working face that two faults are actually exposed, but this paper only studies the failure characteristics of surrounding rock over one fault. The two faults interact with each other during exploitation? Please explain. Answer: Thanks for your comment. The distance between the two faults is 387.6m. Because they are far apart, they will not affect each other during the mining process of the working face. We have added description of the mining face in line 351-353 of the revised manuscript, and added an overview map and as shown in Fig 6. 6.The page 16, line 187, a force equivalent to the overlay load is applied to the upper surface of the model. Please instructions the thickness of the covering layer. What is the magnitude of the equal effect? Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have replaced “A counterweight equivalent to the overburden load is applied to the upper surface of the model.” with “According to the thickness of the covering layer is 428.11m and the stress similarity ratio is 91.88, a stress of 0.09 Mpa is applied to the upper surface of the model to compensate for the influence of the overburden load on the model.”, as showed in line 196-198 of the revised manuscript. 7.Please add a plan of the working face in the general section of the working face, indicating the position of the working face in the mining area, the fault position and the position of three measuring stations A1, A2 and A3, etc. Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have added a plan of the working face, indicating the position of the working face in the mining area, the fault position and the position of three measuring stations A1, A2 and A3, as shown in Fig 6 of the revised manuscript. 8.Fig.6 and Fig.7 please add the legend part to illustrate the meanings of different lines and marks in the figure. Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have added the legend part to illustrate the meanings of different lines and marks as showed in Fig 7 and Fig 8 of the revised manuscript. 9.Conclusions should be drawn back to the original text and it is suggested to indicate from which part each conclusion was drawn. For example, numerical simulation experiments show that overburden movement shows obvious "three zones......" Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the conclution and indicated from which part each conclusion was drawn, as showed in the conclution part of the revised manuscript. Modify “Under normal mining conditions, overburden movement displays obvious three-zone characteristics and presents trapezoidal subsidence, and the influence distance of mining stress in advance of working face is about 20 m. Under through-the-fault mining conditions, affected by the inherent characteristics of fault, the stress increases abnormally near the fault. Fault slip and dislocation cause overburden load to transfer to both sides of the fault. Abnormal stress accumulation occurs, and the “three zone” characteristics of overburden movement basically disappear. The hanging wall subsides in the form of inverted triangle, and the influence distance of the advance mining stress on the working face is about 30 m from the fault.” to “Similar experiments show that, compared with ordinary mining, through-the-fault mining causes slippage and dislocation of the fault, the load of the overburden is transferred to both sides of the fault, and the stress near the fault accumulates abnormally. The “three zones” characteristics of the overburden movement basically disappear, the subsidence pattern is changed from "trapezoid" to "inverted triangle", and the influence distance of the advance mining stress on the working face is extended from 20m to 30m.” Modify “In terms of the roadway under the influence of fault, the reinforced support has a better supporting effect, which verifies the accuracy of the conclusion.” to “The engineering application shows that the reinforced support has a good support effect for the roadway under the influence of the fault in the mining process of the working face.” 10.The format of 24 references is not correct. Answer: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript to the requirements of our journal as showed in the reference part of the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r002
16 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Fabio Trippetta, Editor PONE-D-21-26499R1Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through faultPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, reviewers pointed out that the paper's novelty should be clarified. Moreover they also highlight the need of clarifying some technical steps. I encourage the authors in carefully following the reviewers suggestions, since I think that they will greatly improve the paper. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Fabio Trippetta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: 1. Please continuously clarify the novelty of the MS because the MS does not well show the novelty. 2. please check the reliability of result of 2.32m. In eq.20, the values of s shows 0.1 and 0.01, please check it. 3. It is suggested to remove the author marks of equally contuibution. Reviewer #2: All the revisions are addressed. What's the groundwater impact the fault movement? does it influnce you results? ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r003
Revision 2
19 Nov 2021 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions and questions. All the modifications made according to reviewer’s comments are highlighted in yellow and using track changes in the manuscript. Our responses are also outlined below following your comments. I hope the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in our journal. Sincerely, Yuejin Zhou, Ph. D. Corresponding author for the manuscript Ref: PONE-D-21-26499R1 Title: Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault Journal: PLOS ONE Reviewer #1: 1. Please continuously clarify the novelty of the MS because the MS does not well show the novelty. Answer: Thanks for your comment. Aiming at the influence of mining face excavation on the roadway through fault, the geological strength index (GSI) was introduced to obtain the basis for judging the instability of the surrounding rock of the roadway through fault, and combined with two different similar tests to analyze the scope of roadway instability and the failure law of overlying rock masses. According to the conclusions obtained, the roadway support scheme is designed. This study shows that: 1) Through the introduction of GSI, it is found that the instability range of roadway surrounding rock is exponentially correlated with the rupture degree of surrounding rock. On this basis, the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m. 2) Compared with ordinary mining, through-the-fault mining causes slippage and dislocation of the fault, the load of the overburden is transferred to both sides of the fault, and the stress near the fault accumulates abnormally. The “three zones” characteristics of the overburden movement basically disappear, the subsidence pattern is changed from "trapezoid" to "inverted triangle", and the influence distance of the advance mining stress on the working face is extended from 20m to 30m. 3) According to the conclusion, the bolt length and roadway reinforced support length are redesigned. Engineering application shows that the deformation rate of the roadway within 60 days is controlled below 0.1~0.5mm/d, the deformation amount is controlled within 150mm, and the roadway deformation is controlled, which generally meets the requirements of use. The research results provide guidance and reference for similar roadway support design. 2. please check the reliability of result of 2.32m. In eq.20, the values of s shows 0.1 and 0.01, please check it. Answer: Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper. The value of s is 0.01, we are very sorry that we missed the number when editing the formula. The overall calculation result is correct. and the specific calculation results are written in the file of“Responses to reviewers” . 3. It is suggested to remove the author marks of equally contuibution. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed the author marks of equally contuibution. Reviewer #2: 1. What's the groundwater impact the fault movement? does it influnce your results? Answer: Thanks for your comment. This paper studies the impact of mining face excavation on the roadway through fault. The activation of faults is mainly caused by mining face excavation, and the influence of groundwater in this process is small and does not influnce the results. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r004
2 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Fabio Trippetta, Editor PONE-D-21-26499R2Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through faultPLOS ONE Dear Dr. ZHOU, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. I noticed that the author answered to the reviewer's comment only in the "Responses to reviewers" file. However the "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes" show no changes with respect to the previous version. I would like to highlight that if a reviewer ask a question this means that that message is not clear along the paper and, thus, the answer should be added to the paper in order to clarify that point. Consequently, I suggest the authors to clarify the questions raised by the reviewers directly in the paper. For clarity I report again the previous main reviewers points: 1. Please continuously clarify the novelty of the MS because the MS does not well show the novelty.2. What's the groundwater impact the fault movement? does it influnce your results? Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Fabio Trippetta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r005
Revision 3
7 Dec 2021 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you very much for your reminder, and thank you very much for your careful review of our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions and questions. All the modifications made according to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in yellow and using track changes in the manuscript. Our responses are also outlined below following your comments. I hope the revised manuscript is acceptable for publication in our journal. Finally, thank you again for your reminders and comments. Sincerely, Yuejin Zhou, Ph. D. Corresponding author for the manuscript Ref: PONE-D-21-26499 Title: Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault Journal: PLOS ONE Reviewer #1: 1. Please continuously clarify the novelty of the MS because the MS does not well show the novelty. Answer: Thanks for your comment. Your comment is very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have revised the abstract section to better express the novelty of the MS in lines 11-15 and line 22 of the revised manuscript. The revised summary section is as follows： In the mining process of working face, the additional stress generated by the fault changes the law of roadway deformation and failure as well as the law of overburden failure. Aiming at the influence of the fault in the mining process of working face, this study introduced the geological strength index (GSI) to analyze the stress distribution in the elastic-plastic zone of the surrounding rock of the roadway. And similar experiments under different engineering backgrounds were combined to study the characteristics of overburden movement and stress evolution. Based on the conclusions obtained, the roadway support scheme was designed. This study shows that, compared with ordinary mining, through-the-fault mining causes slippage and dislocation of the fault, the load of the overburden is transferred to both sides of the fault, and the stress near the fault accumulates abnormally. The “three zones” characteristics of the overburden movement disappear, the subsidence pattern is changed from "trapezoid" to "inverted triangle", and the influence distance of the advanced mining stress on the working face is extended from 20m to 30m. The instability range of roadway surrounding rock is exponentially correlated with the rupture degree of the surrounding rock. Through the introduction of GSI, the critical instability range of roadway surrounding rock is deduced to be 2.32m. According to the conclusion, the bolt length and roadway reinforced support length are redesigned. Engineering application shows that the deformation rate of the roadway within 60 days is controlled below 0.1~0.5mm/d, the deformation amount is controlled within 150mm, and the roadway deformation is controlled, which generally meets the requirements of use. The research results provide guidance and reference for similar roadway support. 2. please check the reliability of result of 2.32m. In eq.20, the values of s shows 0.1 and 0.01, please check it. Answer: Thank you very much for your careful review of our paper. The value of s is 0.01, we are very sorry that we missed the number when editing the formula. The overall calculation result is correct. And the specific calculation results are written in the file of“Responses to reviewers” . 3. It is suggested to remove the author marks of equally contuibution. Answer: Thank you for this suggestion. After our discussion, we have removed the author marks of equally contuibution in line 3 of the revised manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. What's the groundwater impact the fault movement? does it influnce your results? Answer: Thanks for your comment. Your comment is very valuable for revising our paper. Generally, when a fault zone connects to aquifers, groundwater will spread to the fault. The pressure of pore fluid in the fault zone will increase, and the friction strength of the fault will decrease, which will accelerate fault instability. For this study, since the fault has a small drop and does not connect to the aquifer, the excavation of the working face under the influence of the fault is the main reason for roadway instability, so the groundwater is not considered. We have added relevant explanations in lines 188-190 of the revised manuscript. The distribution law of fault stress under the influence of groundwater, involves water-sediment seepage, the hydration reaction of fault, and the impact on roadway instability. We are researching these aspects, and we have achieved some results so far. We hope to publish relevant research results on PLOS ONE in the future. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r006
20 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Fabio Trippetta, Editor Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault PONE-D-21-26499R3 Dear Dr. ZHOU, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Fabio Trippetta, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r007
Formally Accepted
10 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Fabio Trippetta, Editor PONE-D-21-26499R3 Study on overburden failure law and surrounding rock deformation control technology of mining through fault Dear Dr. Zhou: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Fabio Trippetta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262243.r008

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .