Experimental Study on the Accumulation Characteristics and Submergence Degree of Three-Dimensional Granular Rock Landslides in Shallow-Water Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is well-structured with clear statement of research objectives and adoption of appropriate methodologies to achieve the goal of the study. The research findings appears to be important as it contributes to the understanding of some of the important variables that characterize landslides in shallow underwater reservoirs. Some comments/suggestions are proposed as attached which may be considered to further improve the manuscript. I wish the authors all the best.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor edition of the language suggested
Author Response
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This has greatly helped our research. We have made point-to-point modifications to the comments as indicated in red font. The explanation of the modifications and corrections in this revision are listed in the PDF text below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Experimental study on the accumulation characteristics and submergence degree of three-dimensional granular rock landslides in shallow water area
This paper addresses the rock mass structure, main and tributary river channel characteristics, and flow conditions in the Three Gorges Reservoir area of the Yangtze River. It designs and constructs a three-dimensional granular rock shallow water landslide surge model test system under water flow dynamics. The main influencing variables, including the volume of the landslide body, inclination of the sliding surface, channel water depth, and flow velocity, are determined. To establish test conditions, a combination of a four-factor four-level orthogonal test design and a single-factor test design is employed, resulting in 28 sets of test conditions. This study can provide good insights to river landslide, hence useful to river engineers community. However, few of the references are out-of-date and must be refreshed and restructured. More factors need to be discussed in this paper, where below are points for consideration:
1- The introduction: It should more clearly points out the novelty of this study. Also, there is need to in-depth clear discussion related previous works.
2- Authors need to make sure thoroughly review all the references in manuscript. I have noticed some discrepancies in the context, particularly in Introduction line 52. And Section 3.3 line 361.
3- Papers that may be interesting for your work to enrich the study:
· (2011) Shallow water numerical model of the wave generated by the Vajont landslide. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(4), pp.406-418.
· (2022) Environmental Hydraulics, Turbulence and Sediment Transport, MDPI Publisher, ISBN 978-3-0365-3242-4 (Hbk); ISBN 978-3-0365-3243-1.
· (2023) The Urban Fluvial and Hydro-Environment System, Frontiers Media SA. Lausanne, DOI: 10.3389/978-2-83250-989-0.
4- The manuscript contains some lengthy sentences and incomplete sentences that can confuse readers such as Section 1 (lines 33-41) (lines 89-91), Section 3.1 (lines 204-208) / Section 3.2 (lines 278-281) / Section 3.3 (lines 368-372). Also check the dictation in whole manuscript such as: lines 60 (variables) and 134 (1.5%).
5- Why did the authors choose to limit themselves to only 28 experiments when they were dealing with 4 different parameters across 4 conditions for each (Table 1)? The range of conditions seems randomly selected, so what criteria influenced this decision?
6- Authors should review the entire manuscript to ensure a consistent style when referencing ‘Equations’.
7- What consequences does the river path bending bring to the experiment (as it shows in Figure 1), and how has it properly considered?
8- What potential impacts on the experiment can be expected if there is a change in ΔH (Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7)?
9- Section 3.1 refers to ‘continuous organic whole’: What exactly is mean by this term?
10- The manuscript must be proofread properly to improve the writing quality and reduce syntax and language errors. Also, why there is no consistency and coherently between the statements in some parts, like lines 71-72 (The movement accumulation process…), lines 188-190 (At present research methods ….), or lines 282-285 (Select any experimental ….)
11- The Conclusion is repetitive, basically repeating Section 2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4. Instead it needs to effectively conclude the study's findings. Your findings and arguments have to be emphasized clearly on the significance of your work. A recommendation for future research should also be included, providing a clear benchmark for subsequent studies.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed proofread
Author Response
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This has greatly helped our research. We have made point-to-point modifications to the comments as indicated in red font. The explanation of the modifications and corrections in this revision are listed in the PDF text below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs a general comment, the authors should describe and elucidate the characteristics of the moving landmass that is investigated. The authors refer to rocks and soil and it is expected that a landslide will be a mixture of both materials but rock may dominate as material over soil and vice versa. Also, the soil may be a minor constituent, but still, its characteristics might dominate the landslide behaviour. Also, the health state (weathered or not, saprolite for instance) of the rock has a significant influence on the potential behaviour of a landslide. In Figures 8 and 10, it is evident that the research is related to a blocky rock mass. However, this is not evident from the text. In addition, the text refers also to soil whereas there is no soil evident in pictures 8 and 10.
Figure 11 is a mere representation of the obtained data with no statistical calculations provided, such as the method, while there is no information derived from the data itself.
A discussion section on how the results can also be used in other circumstances and how to provide further support on understanding the mechanisms of these events would be greatly beneficial.
Line 44, capital letter after comma.
Line 60, the word variables have a space in the middle.
Figure 2: units are in m; however, the numbers presented in the figure itself raise doubts.
Figure 3. Use different font colours for clarity.
Line 167, units are not in the SI system. Please convert for consistency.
In table 1, the numbers in the second column are not aligned. The third column is not in SI units.
In line 181, there is an etc. Thus, the authors have not provided the whole information but instead a vague statement. Please complete the sentence and remove the etc.
Similarly in line 184.
Line 191 suggestion to replace disaster with hazard.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
As a general comment, the authors should describe and elucidate the characteristics of the moving landmass that is investigated. The authors refer to rocks and soil and it is expected that a landslide will be a mixture of both materials but rock may dominate as material over soil and vice versa. Also, the soil may be a minor constituent, but still, its characteristics might dominate the landslide behaviour. Also, the health state (weathered or not, saprolite for instance) of the rock has a significant influence on the potential behaviour of a landslide. In Figures 8 and 10, it is evident that the research is related to a blocky rock mass. However, this is not evident from the text. In addition, the text refers also to soil whereas there is no soil evident in pictures 8 and 10.
Figure 11 is a mere representation of the obtained data with no statistical calculations provided, such as the method, while there is no information derived from the data itself.
A discussion section on how the results can also be used in other circumstances and how to provide further support on understanding the mechanisms of these events would be greatly beneficial.
Line 44, capital letter after comma.
Line 60, the word variables have a space in the middle.
Figure 2: units are in m; however, the numbers presented in the figure itself raise doubts.
Figure 3. Use different font colours for clarity.
Line 167, units are not in the SI system. Please convert for consistency.
In table 1, the numbers in the second column are not aligned. The third column is not in SI units.
In line 181, there is an etc. Thus, the authors have not provided the whole information but instead a vague statement. Please complete the sentence and remove the etc.
Similarly in line 184.
Line 191 suggestion to replace disaster with hazard.
Author Response
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This has greatly helped our research. We have made point-to-point modifications to the comments as indicated in red font. The explanation of the modifications and corrections in this revision are listed in the PDF text below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reading the revised version, I think the authors have not addressed my comments satisfactorily. In particular, the comments below needed attention:
1. The novelty of this study is still not clarified satisfactorily, where the a big part amount of references used are still out-dated. They need to be majorly reviewed.
2. My second point on references has also not addressed. The references used together with coherency of arguments in introduction are still need to be improved.
3. Second and third paragraphs of introduction need to be improved. The referred literature should be used in the context of arguing the statement or topic discussed. They should not be just listing down on what they studied.
4. A lot of discussions within this paper are still using long and confusing sentences. They need to be formulated properly and proofread carefully.
5. Conclusion should not be formulated in bullet points, but in proper paragraphs.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagestill need improvement
Author Response
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the reviewers and editors for their helpful comments and suggestions. We have made modifications in the text, which are displayed in blue font.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant revision. I suggest to accept it at current form.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageCan be minorly improved.
