An Enhanced Discrete Element Modeling Method Considering Spatiotemporal Correlations for Investigating Deformations and Failures of Jointed Rock Slopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Intersting work. I have a few question/comments as follows:
The advantage of this DEM method over other widely used methods for landslide modeling (LE, FEM) is a bit unclear and basically what is the need to perform a DEM study for landslide modeling while large scale movement is important rather than localized movements of each rock block?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “An Enhanced Discrete Element Modeling Method by Considering Spatiotemporal Correlations for Investigating Deformations and Failures of Jointed Rock Slopes” for your consideration for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.
We have made a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, including a detailed description of any requested or suggested revisions.
We have also carefully checked and corrected the writing format and errors to make our revised manuscript conform to the journal style.
All the modifications and explanations in this revised version are listed in detail in the following “Responses to Reviewer's Comments”.
We would deeply appreciate your consideration and reviewers’ helpful comments and suggestions.
Yours Sincerely,
Xiaona Zang, Yan Sun*, Gang Mei
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with a very interesting topic regarding an enhanced discrete element modeling method by considering spatiotemporal correlations for investigating deformations and failures of jointed rock slopes. Overall, it is a comprehensive study, well referenced and the findings provided indicate that a great deal of effort was put. Suggestions for improvements that could be performed to the manuscript prior to its publication are the following:
- The authors could add a table that includes a summary of all the past methodologies that are mentioned and the novelties of this paper compared to the previous papers, in order to highlight their contribution to the subject.
- Some editing regarding the English language is required at some parts of the paper.
- What could be some possible restrictions or challenges if the proposed method would be implemented in a different area of interest/different case study? Are there any other factors that should be taken into account?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “An Enhanced Discrete Element Modeling Method by Considering Spatiotemporal Correlations for Investigating Deformations and Failures of Jointed Rock Slopes” for your consideration for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.
We have made a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, including a detailed description of any requested or suggested revisions.
We have also carefully checked and corrected the writing format and errors to make our revised manuscript conform to the journal style.
All the modifications and explanations in this revised version are listed in detail in the following “Responses to Reviewer's Comments”.
We would deeply appreciate your consideration and reviewers’ helpful comments and suggestions.
Yours Sincerely,
Xiaona Zang, Yan Sun*, Gang Mei
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents the extensive research conducted on the deformations and failures of slopes in theory and practice. The authors compare the discrete element modeling method based on the displacement variation coefficient and the newly proposed method based on the energy correlation coefficient. They claim that their method is more applicable for jointed rock slopes and is successfully applied to analyze a real-world jointed rock slope. In the manuscript is presented a simplified rock slope model to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. Next, the proposed method is applied to the deformations and failures analysis of a real rock slope case, which is the most valuable of this work.
In my opinion, there are some flaws in the manuscript:
- Good references research in the introduction however, 24 from 35 references are from China researchers.
- Figure 1 - the parameter CC should be defined on the scheme or in the text. Only in Subsection 2.4.2 is defined. I recommend adding an explanation in the diagram before di and n, in the rectangle on the right side.
- Units are missing in the formulas and in their legend.
- On Figures: 2, 5b, 6, 10, 11, 12 should be a legend.
- Section Discussion must be improved. The discussion makes general statements. There is no broader analysis of the results of the studies carried out and their reference to similar studies conducted by other scientists mentioned in the introduction.
The following are just minor comments, which can help to improve the readability of the paper:
Line 301 - double space before “The quantity of… “
Lines 339 - 353 - in many places no space, e.g. between value and unit.
Line 404 - double space before “Figure 11(a) …”
Line 409 - no space between 15 and m
Line 419 - double space before “This part …”
Line 425 - double space before “Because the …”
Line 429 - no space between 300 and mm/h
Line 431 - double space before “The main …”
English is fine, but the interpunction should be corrected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to submit our revised paper entitled “An Enhanced Discrete Element Modeling Method by Considering Spatiotemporal Correlations for Investigating Deformations and Failures of Jointed Rock Slopes” for your consideration for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.
We have made a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, including a detailed description of any requested or suggested revisions.
We have also carefully checked and corrected the writing format and errors to make our revised manuscript conform to the journal style.
All the modifications and explanations in this revised version are listed in detail in the following “Responses to Reviewer's Comments”.
We would deeply appreciate your consideration and reviewers’ helpful comments and suggestions.
Yours Sincerely,
Xiaona Zang, Yan Sun*, Gang Mei
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for clarifications and your response.
Best of luck.
Reviewer 2 Report
Suggested recommendations were applied by the authors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been revised according to my suggestions, so I accept it in its present form.
