Analysis of the Failure Area of the Slope Using the Slip Line Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Accepted as it is.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper.

However, we are wondering why you would not like to sign your review report even though your comments are 'Accepted as it is'.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our paper.

The reply to the comment is as follows:

Comments 1:

The abstract needs revision. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

-The abstract was entirely revised.

Comments 2:

The paper language and punctuation need revision by an expert.

- The paper language has been corrected through the advice of experts.

Comments 3:

The introduction section needs revision. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented to the introduction.

- The necessity of the paper were added at the beginning of the introduction (lines 24-32). In addition, innovation compared to existing research and the main purpose of the paper were added at the end of the introduction (lines 95-101).

Comments 4:

Line 377: Is the words ‘firing area’ correct? It seems should be ‘failure area’. Please check.

- 'Firing area' was revised to 'failure area'.

Comments 5:

According to your contrast results, there were always big differences between the slip line methods and finite element limit analysis when slopes with 10 degrees (This difference is especially obvious in the homogeneous stratum. (Fig.10-13)). What do you think is the source of this difference?

-The slip line method is that analyzing the failure area according to the ground properties and boundary conditions.
The analysis conditions set in this paper are composed of the ground from alluvium to soft rock with no external load. Therefore, in the case of the alluvial layer, it can be seen that a small failure area was analyzed because the ground properties were low and there was no external load. Through Table 2 and Figures 10-13, it can be confirmed that the size of the failure area increases according to the ground properties.
In contrast, finite element limit analysis induces failure through the strength reduction method, therefore, ground properties are reduced overall. Therefore, it suggests that failure may be over-interpreted.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors revised the manuscript adequately. The language, the abstract, novelty of this paper has been well improved. I am satisfied with the revised version.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper analyzed the virtual failure surface, failure area, and internal stress of heterogeneous and single ground using the slip line method and finite element analysis. Some useful results were obtained. It is suggested that this manuscript can be accepted. Some minor comments are provided as follows

(1) The authors should clarify the main contributions and limitations of the proposed method compared with the existing literatures.

(2) In addition to the slip line method, there were also many methods used to analyze the failure of slopes and tunnels, such as the limit analysis and the limit equilibrium. The authors may discuss these methods and follow some latest literatures.

[1]      Effect of inclined layered soils on face stability in shield tunneling based on limit analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 2023, 131: 104773.

[2]      Face stability of shield tunnels considering a kinematically admissible velocity field of soil arching. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2022, 14: 505-526.

[3]      Face stability analysis of shallow circular tunnels in cohesive-frictional soils. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 50: 345-357.

(3) The resolutions of some figures can be improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s comments

1.      Abstract: Move (Lines 9-10) to the introduction section.

2.       In Abstract: Delete: “Previously studied slip line method was applied only to a single ground”.

3.      The results of this investigation are not included in the abstract.

4.      Introduction: Lines 22–27 have been left uncited.

5.      Rephrase Lines 31-32 as follows: Cheng carried out a study using simulated annealing, a probabilistic heuristic method, to identify the critical failure surface [2].

6.      Line 66: Explain why the upper ground slope was set at 1.5 m.

7.      On Figure 4, for both the upper and lower grounds, illustrate the alluvium and sedimentary (soft ground) and weathered and soft rock (hard ground).

8.      Lines 179–180: Explain why a virtual stress singular point was arbitrarily assigned to be 4 m to the left of the slope's beginning point in order to assess the failure region.

9.      From whence is the failure length estimated in Figs. 8–11

10.  Figs. 8-11, What comparison can be drawn between the outcomes of the slip line method and the strength reduction methodology (such as maximum shear strain)?

11.  In light of the slip line analysis, how do the outcomes of single ground and heterogeneous ground differ (e.g., failure surface, different slope angles)?

12.  How should the results of the numerical modelling be confirmed?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is well written, and I am willing to accept it in present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Minor revision:

1. Some figures are too simple such as Figs. 1, 2, and 6. May consider deleting them.

2. The references for Eqs. 1 to 4 are required.

3. Fig. 4 can be improved.

4. Table 4 is difficult to see.

5. An example of the excel sheet which the authors used should be presented in the paper.

6. How to get FoS? It is not clear for me.

7. The basic of slip line method is required.

8. More relevant works about the slope stability should be mentioned in the introduction part as: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.05.016; 10.1007/s41062-020-00384-x; 10.1007/s40515-020-00137-4; 10.1007/s40891-022-00390-2; 10.1142/S2047684121500305