Experimental Study on the Evolutionary Law of Transient Saturation Zones in a Red Mud Dam under Rainfall Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript ‘‘Experimental study on the evolution law of transient saturation zone of red mud dam under rainfall conditions ” by Shiqi Chang et al. reported the failure mechanisms of the red mud dam under distinct operational conditions during these rainfall events, thereby offering insights for landslide prevention and ensuring dam construction quality.
Overall, the topic is interesting, however, there are some gaps in this.
It is suggested that the manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. The following points must be considered.
(1)In “introduction” section, the reference citation should be just like [1-3], [4,5], [6,7]……，please remove (Bian et al., 2022; Fang et al.,2011; Nan et al.,2010), (Lima et al.,2020; Reddy et al.,2020), (Wang et al., 2021; Wei et al.,2019) ……. Please rewrite it.
(2)In line 96, the words “（a）YBY-4010 data acquisition systems（b）Pore water pressure sensors “ seems different from other formats, Please unify the format in the text.
(3)In line 125 “ The measurement point arrangement is shown in Figure 6” and in line 128-129 “After the rainfall uniformity test, the measured rainfall uniformity is 82%, which meets the test requirements.” These two sentence can be put in one paragraph, please rewrite them.
(4)In line 171-173 “It investigates the variation rule of parameters such as moisture content, soil pressure, and pore water pressure in red mud dams, under varying starting conditions of sloping types and slope ratios, when subjected to heavy rainfall.” The sentence is not quite appropriate, please rewrite it.
(5) In line 179 table 2, what does the “Rainfall Time” “t” mean? Please express it clearly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: (1)In “introduction” section, the reference citation should be just like [1-3], [4,5], [6,7]……，please remove (Bian et al., 2022; Fang et al.,2011; Nan et al.,2010), (Lima et al.,2020; Reddy et al.,2020), (Wang et al., 2021; Wei et al.,2019) ……. Please rewrite it.
Response 1: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have rewritten the “introduction” section according to your advise. The changes can be seen in Lines 34-70 highlighted in red.
Comments 2: (2)In line 96, the words “（a）YBY-4010 data acquisition systems（b）Pore water pressure sensors “ seems different from other formats, Please unify the format in the text.
Response 2: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have unified all the format in text. And one of reviewer recommended us remove some redundant figures with less information. We have amended the figures in this paper, and removed the figures 2-4.
Comments 3: (3)In line 125 “ The measurement point arrangement is shown in Figure 6” and in line 128-129 “After the rainfall uniformity test, the measured rainfall uniformity is 82%, which meets the test requirements.” These two sentence can be put in one paragraph, please rewrite them.
Response 3: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have revised these sentences in one paragraph according to the comment. The change can be seen in Line 107-110 highlighted in red.
Comments 4: (4)In line 171-173 “It investigates the variation rule of parameters such as moisture content, soil pressure, and pore water pressure in red mud dams, under varying starting conditions of sloping types and slope ratios, when subjected to heavy rainfall.” The sentence is not quite appropriate, please rewrite it.
Response 4: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have revised these sentences according to the comment. The change can be seen in Line 157-159 highlighted in red.
Comments 5: (5) In line 179 table 2, what does the “Rainfall Time” “t” mean? Please express it clearly.
Response 5: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have rewritten clear time in Table 2 instead of “t” . The change can be seen in Line 164 highlighted in red.
Comments 5: Minor editing of English language required
Response 5: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have edited the English language for full paper according to the comment, the changes are highlighted in red.
Or please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The format of Ri and 
is wrong in line 119.
2. Table 8(Figure 8), Table 9(Figure 9) and Table 16(Figure 16) are not in the same format as other map names (such as Figure 7.)
3. When describing (a), (b) and (c), Figure. 17(a), Figure. 17(b) and Figure. 17(c) in the paper, the description method in the paper is inconsistent with the table name (Figure 17.), and the same problem exists in Table 23.
4. The title format is not uniform. For example, 3.1.4 Titles end with a period, and other titles do not have punctuation marks at the end.
5. L1 and L2 conduct the same set of tests to evaluate the influence of slope type on dam stability under rainfall conditions. Why are 9 sensors set up in L1 and 10 sensors set up in L2?
6. In Section 6.2.4, the height of the test tank is 1500cm, but the red mud filling is higher than the height of the tank. How to operate this step?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1:1. The format of Ri and is wrong in line 119.
Response 1: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have rewritten the letters according to the comment. The changes can be seen in Lines 112-114 highlighted in red.
Comments 2:2. Table 8(Figure 8), Table 9(Figure 9) and Table 16(Figure 16) are not in the same format as other map names (such as Figure 7.)
Response 2: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have unified the formats of Figure and Table for full paper, The changes are highlighted in red, such as Line 201, 204, 244, 247, 289, 322, 325……...( the Figure 8 and Figure 9 and Figure 16 in old manuscription are changed to be Figure 5 and Figure 6 and Figure 13 in revised manuscription)
Comments 3:3. When describing (a), (b) and (c), Figure. 17(a), Figure. 17(b) and Figure. 17(c) in the paper, the description method in the paper is inconsistent with the table name (Figure 17.), and the same problem exists in Table 23.
Response 3: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have unified the figure name in the paper and table name. The changes can be seen in Lines 362, 368, 374, 384, 386, 535, 536, 545, 546 highlighted in red. (the Figure 17 and Figure 23 in old manuscription are changed to be Figure 14 and Figure 20 in revised manuscription)
Comments 4:4. The title format is not uniform. For example, 3.1.4 Titles end with a period, and other titles do not have punctuation marks at the end.
Response 4: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have unified the title format in full paper. The changes can be seen in Lines 326, 327, 360, 388, 433, 612, 652 highlighted in red.
Comments 5:5. L1 and L2 conduct the same set of tests to evaluate the influence of slope type on dam stability under rainfall conditions. Why are 9 sensors set up in L1 and 10 sensors set up in L2?
Response 5: Actually, we set 10 sensors in both cases L1 and L2, and one of the sensor in L1 becomes unavailable, thus we just show the effective sensors in this research. As a result, 9 sensors set up in L1 and 10 sensors set up in L2. Thank you for your good suggestion, we will conduct experiments more rigorously in following research.
Comments 6:6. In Section 6.2.4, the height of the test tank is 1500cm, but the red mud filling is higher than the height of the tank. How to operate this step?
Response 6: Thank you for your good suggestion, he height of the test tank is 1.2m, which can be seen in Line 81 highlighted in red. In red mud fill process, the maximum stacking height in the experiment is 0.73m, which is lower than the height of the tank. The filling height can be seen in Lines 138-139 highlighted in red.
Or please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper shows an experiment on the evolution law of transient saturation zone of red mud dam under rainfall conditions. The findings in this paper can helps the safety of red mud dam. This paper can be considered after the following comments being addressed.
(1) Two citing reference format is given in the text, which should be corrected according to the requirement of this Journal. For example, the “[14-16] (Cui et al.,2024; Tian et al.,2023; Liu et al.,2012)” should be corrected in to “[14-16]” only.
(2) I was noticed that this paper is submitted to the journal of Sustainability. But this topic is less connected with the topic of this journal. Therefore, the author should show more introduction on the sustainability topic. The following one reference can be referred “Reusing waste clay brick powder for low-carbon cement concrete and alkali-activated concrete: A critical review” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141755)
(3) Generally, the Figs. 1-4 shows less information, and such experimental is not the innovation of this study. These figures are recommended to be removed from this paper.
(4) Showing more analysis and discussions in the revised version.
(5) Giving some quantitative data in abstract and conclusion sections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3:
This paper shows an experiment on the evolution law of transient saturation zone of red mud dam under rainfall conditions. The findings in this paper can helps the safety of red mud dam. This paper can be considered after the following comments being addressed.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: (1) Two citing reference format is given in the text, which should be corrected according to the requirement of this Journal. For example, the “[14-16] (Cui et al.,2024; Tian et al.,2023; Liu et al.,2012)” should be corrected in to “[14-16]” only.
Response 1: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have rewritten the “introduction” section according to your advise. The changes can be seen in Lines 34-70, 198, 227, 319, 501, 527 highlighted in red.
Comments 2: (2) I was noticed that this paper is submitted to the journal of Sustainability. But this topic is less connected with the topic of this journal. Therefore, the author should show more introduction on the sustainability topic. The following one reference can be referred “Reusing waste clay brick powder for low-carbon cement concrete and alkali-activated concrete: A critical review” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141755)
Response 2: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have rewritten the “introduction” section and show some introduction on sustainability topic, such as Lines 37-38, 46-48,68-70. and the meaningful reference is referred in Line 37 highlighted in red.
Comments 3: (3) Generally, the Figs. 1-4 shows less information, and such experimental is not the innovation of this study. These figures are recommended to be removed from this paper.
Response 3: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have removed the Figures 2-3 and just remain Figure 1 to show the Laboratory test tank, and rewritten the “2.1Introduction of the test system”, the changes can be seen in Lines 86-93 highlighted in red.
Comments 4: (4) Showing more analysis and discussions in the revised version.
Response 4: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have added more analysis and discussions in the revised version, the changes can be seen in Lines 197-199, 223-227, 238-242, 316-319, 484-501, 519-527, 567-569, 643-649, 652-694.
Comments 5: (5) Giving some quantitative data in abstract and conclusion sections.
Response 5: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have added some quantitative data in abstract and conclusion sections in the revised version, the changes can be seen in Lines 20-29, 729-742.
Comments 6: Moderate editing of English language required
Response 6: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have edited the English language for full paper according to the comment, the changes are highlighted in red.
Or please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript: sustainability-2943523
The present manuscript investigates and discusses possible failure mechanisms of red mud dams, based on a laboratory model test. Distinct operational conditions (slope types and ratios) were tested under simulated heavy rainfall events, by evaluating volumetric moisture content, soil pressure, and pore water pressure. The study also provides guidance on dam construction quality and landslide prevention.
The manuscript is adequately written and organised. The introduction provides the theoretical knowledge of the research. The methodology, results, discussion are well connected, and the conclusions are concise. The arrangement of the results and discussion are combined with appropriate figures and tables.
In my opinion, the manuscript addresses an interesting topic, being of potential interest to researchers and decision makers, and meets the publishing objectives of the Sustainability Journal.”
Comments on the Quality of English Languagetext editing to correct typos
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4:
The present manuscript investigates and discusses possible failure mechanisms of red mud dams, based on a laboratory model test. Distinct operational conditions (slope types and ratios) were tested under simulated heavy rainfall events, by evaluating volumetric moisture content, soil pressure, and pore water pressure. The study also provides guidance on dam construction quality and landslide prevention.
The manuscript is adequately written and organised. The introduction provides the theoretical knowledge of the research. The methodology, results, discussion are well connected, and the conclusions are concise. The arrangement of the results and discussion are combined with appropriate figures and tables.
In my opinion, the manuscript addresses an interesting topic, being of potential interest to researchers and decision makers, and meets the publishing objectives of the Sustainability Journal.”
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: text editing to correct typos
Response 1: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have edited the English language for full paper according to the comment, the changes are highlighted in red.
Or please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and Suggestions
Overall, the research presented in this paper is original, novel and well-composed. The authors provided sufficient background of the study, presented materials and methods in detail, and discussed research findings. The manuscript is recommended for publication after consideration of minor comments mentioned hereunder.
Minor Comments
1. Lines 44-67 summarize previous studies conducted related to the topic considered in this study, however, the authors did not analyze these studies considering their contributions and highlighted research gap in previous studies which were considered in this paper.
2. The captions of Figures 3a and 3b need text formatting.
3. Please mention, if the rainfall intensity was uniform, or it was distributed with some specific synthetic pattern.
4. Figures 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 23 need to be updated with better visibility and quality.
5. The authors have made detailed explanations of different evaluations/tests and presented them well in the results and discussion sections. However, the findings should also be discussed in light of previous studies’ findings, either the current paper’s results verify them or disagree with them, with scientific reasoning. Also, please highlight significant contributions that are expected to arise from this study.
6. The authors may also highlight future research direction in light of current research conducted in this paper.
7. The manuscript needs further improvements in manuscript’s writing.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The manuscript needs further improvements in manuscript’s writing.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5:
Overall, the research presented in this paper is original, novel and well-composed. The authors provided sufficient background of the study, presented materials and methods in detail, and discussed research findings. The manuscript is recommended for publication after consideration of minor comments mentioned hereunder.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Minor Comments
Comments 1: 1. Lines 44-67 summarize previous studies conducted related to the topic considered in this study, however, the authors did not analyze these studies considering their contributions and highlighted research gap in previous studies which were considered in this paper.
Response 1: According to the comment, we have revised the introduction section. The changes can be seen in Lines 34-77 highlighted in red.
Comments 2: 2. The captions of Figures 3a and 3b need text formatting.
Response 2: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have checked the captions of Figures in full paper and revised them according to your advise. The information in Figure 3 seems to be less, as one of the reviewers recommended, we removed the Figure 3 from this paper.
Comments 3: 3. Please mention, if the rainfall intensity was uniform, or it was distributed with some specific synthetic pattern.
Response 3: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have added the sentence to mention that the the rainfall intensity was uniform in Lines 99-101 highlighted in red.
Comments 4: 4. Figures 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 23 need to be updated with better visibility and quality.
Response 4: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, Figures 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 23 are updated with better visibility and quality. The changes can be seen in Lines 200, 243, 287, 320, 352, 429, 528, 544,570,608. (the Figure 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 23 in old manuscription are changed to be Figure 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18 and 20 in revised manuscription)
Comments 5: 5. The authors have made detailed explanations of different evaluations/tests and presented them well in the results and discussion sections. However, the findings should also be discussed in light of previous studies’ findings, either the current paper’s results verify them or disagree with them, with scientific reasoning. Also, please highlight significant contributions that are expected to arise from this study.
Response 5: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have added some discussions in light of previous studies’ findings. The changes can be seen in Lines 197-199, 223-227, 238-242, 316-319, 484-501, 519-527, 567-569, 643-649, 652-694.
Also, we have highlighted the significant contributions that are expected to arise from this study in Lines 689-694.
Comments 6: 6. The authors may also highlight future research direction in light of current research conducted in this paper.
Response 6: Thank you for your good suggestion, we have highlighted future research direction in Lines 695-703 highlighted in red.
Comments 7: 7. The manuscript needs further improvements in manuscript’s writing.
Response 7: The comment is very valuable for perfecting our manuscript, we have edited the English language for full paper according to the comment, the changes are highlighted in red.
Or please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper can be published at the current form.
