Bearing Capacity of Volcanic Pyroclasts Using the Discontinuity Layout Optimization Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study present a procedure to estimate the bearing capacity of volcanic pyroclasts using DLO method. The advantages of DLO were declared through comparing the results with those obtained through analytical method as well as FLAC modeling. The study verified the capability of this method to solve the problem that the volcanic pyroclasts involved. However, there are some suggestions and concerns with respect to the presence of this manuscript:

1. The model in Sections 4 and 5 is quite different from that mentioned in Sections 6 and 7. So my concern is why the model in Sections 4 and 5 was introduced since it was adopted from [12].
2. Even though the volcanic pyroclasts have particular mechanical characteristics, how the study shows the advantage for DLO to solve problem of the bearing capability of  pyroclasts foundations?
3. Coordinate values were incorrect by missing the decimal point in Fig. 6.

Author Response

Response file is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is too similar to the article previously published by the authors (https://doi.org/10.1002 / zamm.201900192). The analyzes performed in this paper are based on similar assumptions and the same computational model with minor changes. The structure of the article is very similar. The authors sometimes do not even refer to the works made by themselves, e.g. they show drawings that have already been published and do not provide citing. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the article is too similar to the previous ones published by the authors. In my opinion, the article is unacceptable in this form.
Works recently published by authors on the same subject:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266352X20305024
https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.201900192

Author Response

Response file is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised form of the manuscript is acceptable.

Author Response

Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have referred to some of the comments, but not to all of them. The authors still did not refer to their articles in which they conceptually presented the same figures (Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Fig. 8). In addition, there are inaccuracies in the article. The authors state that the model dimensions are 50 x 70 m. Figure 8 shows that the model dimensions are 40 x 25 m (20 x 25 m in symmetry). Which model is correct? Please refer to the comment and give an explanation, as this model is the same as in https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.201900192, and in this publication is the same inaccuracy.

Author Response

Thanks. As indicated by the reviewer, these figures (4, 7 and 8) are referenced. It should be mentioned that with respect to https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.201900192, figure 7 has a more refined modal distance than in the original graph, and that a legend has been added in Figure 8, with which has indicated “adapted from [52]".
Sorry, it is indeed a 40 x 25 m (20 x 25 m in symmetry) model. It is corrected in the text. Many thanks to the reviewer.