Stability Assessment of the Maltravieso Cave (Caceres, Spain) Through Engineering Rock Mass Classification, Empirical, Numerical and Remote Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor but desirable 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have greatly helped us improve the manuscript. Below, we address each of your points:

General Comments:

Redo the Methodology Chapter:

1. Methodology: We have revised the Methodology chapter to ensure that the objectives are clearly separated from the methodological approach.
2. Materials Used: We have included detailed descriptions of the materials, tools, and software used in the study, providing clarity on their application at each stage.
3. Flowchart or Diagram: A flowchart explaining the methodological steps and algorithms used in the analysis has been added to enhance understanding.

Discussion of Results: We have expanded the Discussion section to provide more in-depth analysis and reduced repetitive elements. We have elaborated on the implications of the findings and contextualized them with reference to previous studies, further enhancing the value of the discussion.

 

Conclusions Section: The Conclusions have been rewritten to focus on the key findings and how they relate to the objectives of the study. The section now highlights the significance of the research rather than summarizing the paper.

Specific Comments:

Line 26: Corrected as per your suggestion.

Line 31: We have changed the keywords

Line 52: Figure 1 is our original work

Line 56: We have replaced "room" with "chamber" and "salle" to better align with the correct terminology for caves.

Line 67: We used the most relevant reference, but in cases where self-citation was unavoidable.

Line 70: The sentence has been revised.

Line 72: We were unable to find an international reference regarding the importance of the cave.

Line 123: We understand the need for a regional geological map, but since our focus is on the cave itself, we have opted to provide additional geological information about the cave in the text.

Line 135: “Chimeneas” refers to the name of the chamber in Spanish.

Line 137 and Lines 133-145: Corrected as per your suggestion

Line 148: A flowchart explaining the methodology has been added.

Line 155: The instruments, software, and methods used has been added to this section and the following steps to enhance clarity.

Line 178 and Line 190: The tables in question have been properly referenced.

Line 202: The information was sourced from the referenced paper.

Line 216: Corrected.

Line 220: Corrected.

Line 224: Corrected, We have explained the coefficients.

Line 249 and Line 271: Corrected.

Line 267: A reference has been added.

Line 269: Corrected

Line 303, Line 307: Corrected

 

Line 311: missing units have been added.

Line 317: We have clarified that wedge analysis is being referred to.

Line 325: The names and developers of the software used have been cited.

Line 328: A brief explanation of the methodology and the tools involved has been added for clarity.

Line 329: Corrected

Line 333, Line 334, Line 335, Line 340: The term “chamber” has been.

Line 341: The paragraph has been moved to the Materials and Methods section.

Line 351: We have clarified the number of measurements.

Line 352 and Line 361: “Chambers” has been consistently used in these sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of this paper is focusing on improving the data on Maltravieso cave geomechanics, as well as to validate a methodology, which provides an analysis of stability of natural caves through field data and simple analysis.

This is an interesting and well-structured paper. All necessary sections (Introduction, Regional Framework, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions) have been considered. Moreover, the “Materials and Methods” and “Discussion” sections are divided into sub-sections, providing additional details. Furthermore, all Figures, Tables and Diagrams are consistent with the analysis provided in the manuscript. Regarding the mathematical part, related to the equations of rock mass classification, it is valid and satisfactorily explained.

 

In general, the contribution of this paper is significant, as limited similar research results have been extracted for this area. There are two significant points, which should be corrected, leading to the overall improvement of the paper: 1) The Figure captions are quite brief. Please, include more information in all Figure captions and 2) The “Conclusions” section should be modified. In its current form it resembles an abstract rather than conclusions. This section should be comprehensive, while the major findings of the paper should be highlighted. Maybe, numbering of the concluding remarks could be performed. Please, apply.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and positive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions, which helped us enhance the quality of our work. Below, we address each of your comments:

Figure Captions: We understand the importance of detailed figure captions for clarity. In response to your suggestion. We believed that the original captions provided the necessary information; however, after reviewing your suggestion, we revisited all the captions and expanded them with additional explanations. We added more details to clarify the content of some figures, the key observations, and their significance in the context of the study.

Conclusions Section: We agree with your observation regarding the Conclusions section. To address this, we have restructured the section to be more comprehensive and reflective of the key findings of our study. We have ensured that the major results and contributions are clearly emphasized, and, as suggested, we have used numbered points to improve readability and highlight the significance of our conclusions.

Once again, we thank you for your constructive comments. We are confident that these changes will lead to a stronger and clearer manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Stability Assessment of the Maltravieso Cave (Caceres, Spain) Through Engineering Rock Mass Classification, Empirical, Numerical and Remote techniques," which was submitted to remote sensing. The manuscript aims to evaluate cave stability through a combination of various methods.

My recommendation for the manuscript is to reject it. The manuscript lacks innovation and is essentially a combination of different methods. The literature review in the introduction is insufficient and cannot reflect the innovation and significance of the manuscript. The results of the proposed method have not been validated to demonstrate its accuracy. Meanwhile, the language of the manuscript needs to be improved.

Here are some of my suggestions that I hope will help authors improve their manuscript.

1. The stability evaluation methods mentioned in the manuscript are all common methods. The authors merely combined them without proposing any new methods.

2. The introduction contains too much background information about Maltravieso Cave, which should not be included in the introduction.

3. The introduction contains too few literature reviews on cave stability evaluation, which needs to be summarized in detail.

4. The introduction does not highlight the innovation and advantages of this study.

5. The font size in Figure 2 should be consistent.

6. The SfM method can capture color information. Is it possible to display the point cloud in Figure 4 more realistically using RGB colors?

7. Figure 6 should indicate the north direction.

8. Figure 7 should include a scale and indicate the north direction.

9. In Section 4.2, the software-extracted orientations should be compared with the field measurements to verify their accuracy.

10. How is the accuracy of numerical analysis verified in Section 4.4?

11. What are the limitations of this study? What improvements can be made in the future?

12. The language of the manuscript is not fluent. I would recommend that the authors have it reviewed by a native English speaker to eliminate any potential errors.

In summary, I would suggest the manuscript be rejected.

 

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We regret that the reviewer believes that the article should be rejected, but we are also very grateful for the comments he has made to improve the document.

Thank you for your detailed feedback and recommendations. We appreciate your insights and have carefully considered each point to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide our responses to your comments:

Lack of Innovation: We acknowledge that the methods discussed in the manuscript are well-established in tunnel stability analysis. However, our study applies these methods to caves, which presents a new context and application. The adaptation of these techniques to cave environments introduces valuable insights and demonstrates their versatility.

Background Information in Introduction: We agree that the introduction should be focused. We have streamlined the background information on Maltravieso Cave to ensure it is relevant to the study's objectives and highlights its significance.

Literature Review: The literature review in the manuscript focuses primarily on the methods used in cave stability analysis, which we believe is crucial for understanding the context and application of our approach. We have ensured that the review provides a comprehensive overview of the methods applied to caves.

Font Size in Figure 2: Figure 2 was created using QGIS software, and the varying font sizes were intentionally used to enhance visual clarity and distinguish different elements within the figure.

RGB Colors in Point Cloud (Figure 4): We have updated Figure 4 to include RGB colors.

North Direction in Figure 6: North direction has been indicated in Figure 6.

Scale and North Direction in Figure 7: A scale and north direction have been added to Figure 7 for improved clarity.

Accuracy of Software-Extracted Orientations (Section 4.2): We have added a comparison of software-extracted orientations with field measurements.

Accuracy of Numerical Analysis (Section 4.4):

Limitations and Future Improvements: Limitations and future improvements are discussed in the Conclusions section.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and clarify the contributions of our work. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concerns were not well addressed by the authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback. Regarding the recommendations you requested, we apologize for the oversight during the submission process. We mistakenly uploaded an earlier version of the document that did not include all the revisions. In the current version, we have added more information, rewritten the discussion and conclusion, expanded the methodology, and incorporated all your suggestions, including the required details in the figures. If you have any further concerns, we are happy to make additional corrections.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx