Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The manuscript uses deep displacement monitoring data and other geotechnical parameters to simulate steady-state seepage of slope and calculate strain, stress and safety factor of the slope after the application of pore water pressure for three slope conditions, hence, can provide a good example for engineering calculation on the slope stability, However, the structure of manuscript is complex, can be restructured. Overall, it is written with good English except random punctuation errors like spacing after period and units, so I recommend publication after moderate revision.

There are points need to be clarified that I write down in the following:

1) In general figure captions are very poorly written. For example, the model and simulation figures are not clearly explained (Figs. 3 and 4) and the model in fig. 3 is different than geology in fig. 2 (where there is a thin layer within first and second unit on the left) I think it is neglected, better to be explained. The reinforcements in figs. 3 and 4 can also be explained in figure captions.  

Also what do the colors represent in fig. 4 and what are those blocks are (Sliding unit, and so on).

Figures can be better explained from fig. 11 and on.

2) There is another layer termed sliding layer given with different parameters than the other soil types, it is not clear which unit is sliding layer in the model and simulation figures (Figs. 3 and 4). Also please mark excavation area after sliding and reinforcement (is the section on the left over the beam/subgrade center line excavated? If so what are the black lines on the left over the cable in fig. 2? With these lines, it looks like the units continue through the left. So the model looks different in fig. 3, it is not really clear. Also that should be better explained with the boundary conditions in (1) as constraints in x direction. Also better to mark the cross-section line on fig. 1.

3) It is not explained how the slide plane is defined. I assume they are taken from displacement monitoring measurements represented with dashed curves in fig. 3 (which is not also explained in figure caption). Besides it is not clear how it is used in the simulation (slide plane used as input in the simulation hence not calculated as a result). Parameters used in simulation should be explained more detailed in methods section.

4) If so, displacement monitoring results are used as a parameter in the simulations, then I think deep displacement monitoring part should be first introduced in the methods section so it can be moved from results to methods. Also which displacement values used in the simulation, max cumulative displacement?

5) Cable and pile representations (in black lines) in the figures of simulation results after first and second reinforcements look the same, it is confusing.

6) The introduction includes shear strength but the results are all about stress and strain, why? 7) It is stated from line 291 that “When the deviation between the result obtained by the simulation trial calculation and the monitoring value is within a certain range (P<0.01), it is considered that the physical and mechanical parameters selected by the calculation model are reasonable.” But then the p value results were stated as “Use P value to test the results, in which the hole 9 P = 0.039> 0.01; the hole 12 P = 0.793> 0.01. Initially verify that the parameters selected for the simulation are valid”. How??

8) Line 365 “Analysis of Figure 12 shows that the maximum displacement of the slope after excavation is slightly reduced after applying pore water pressure (6.39322cm without considering pore water pressure compared to 6.35777 cm with pore water pressure applied)” It think it should be discussed better why lower displacement rates in saturated conditions, effect of cohesion or whatever (I wonder the saturation rates though) while a contrasting results with the variation in strain in fig. 13 and stress in fig. 14.

In line 393 “More significantly, after applying pore  water pressure, band zone of stress distribution below the original first and second slopes disappears. “ Which bands? I still see “bands” but in different stress ranges.

9) After the application of pore water pressure, the maximum stress value was very slightly reduced from -2.05764e2 kPa to -2.03132e2 kPa. Why negative stress values? Please explain.

Line 395 “In addition, the safety factor of the slope was reduced from 0.625 to 0.6 after applying  pore water pressure.” Safety factors could be shown in figures also.

Line 403 “Figure 15 shows that the application of pore water pressure has a greater influence on the total displacement of the slope after the initial support is constructed. In this condition, the first and second slopes could easily collapse; thus, further protective measures are required…”

Decrease in displacement in the first support after applying pore water pressures, and it increases in the second support are interesting. Why these differences may occur, any basic explanation? Also please mark the first and second slopes on figures.

10) And the stress and strain values after the excavation first and second reinforcements should be summarized clearly. Also please refer to the figures in the discussion part. Please summarize the results of study in a short and clear form.

Above can be revised in accordance, the manuscript would be more fulfilling in my opinion.

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, 
 

The authors have attempted to improve the sections that were pointed out in the first round revision and the manuscript is in better shape and easier to read. I would recommend for publication in the present form.

There is one thing though, it is suggested to correct spacing mistypes; there are many missing spaces, such as, no space in between two sentences, and between numbers and units, there are too many of them, so a bit distracting.

Best regards, 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting paper. Some editing typos