Stability of a Compacted Sand Slope Model Subject to Crest Load

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is focused on the Stability of slope compacted sand subject to crest load, but before proceeding to the second round of revisions, the following major remarks need to be addressed:

1. The abstract should be revised to provide a concise overview of the study's context, research question, hypothesis, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Additionally, it should discuss the main conclusions and the broader context of the study's findings.

2. The introduction needs a more detailed discussion leading up to the problem statement and scope of the study. More literature needs to be cited, such as Line 42: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1532), and Line 43: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0796-z. Also, in Line 44, please cite https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100697.

3. The introduction should clearly highlight the study's novelty and its research goals.

4. The methodology needs refinement to ensure it is logical, clear, and replicable. If any portion or all of the methodology has been published previously, a brief summary should be provided, and the original source cited.

5. In the explanation of Table 1, it is important to state clearly how the slope geometry was obtained, including its practical significance of it.

6. It is unclear how authors observed different responses at the top, middle, and toe of the slopes and how uniform compaction is ensured throughout the slope. Please provide relevant discussion.

7. Lines 75-78, 265, 268, 324, 345, 346 and 245 need revision to ensure there are no grammatical or formatting errors. Do not use & in the main text body. Enhance discussion in General comments. Additionally, references need to be added to Lines 33-34, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131345; Please cite in 256-258: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104152. 

8. The manuscript's formatting needs to be checked in detail to resolve issues of the use of non-italic symbols in the text appearing repeatedly.

9. Improve the conclusion section by adding limitations of your work.

10. Overall thorough proofreading is required to improve its language and coherence.

Author Response

Detailed responses as requested are enclosed in the attached file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The researched stability of slopes to understand the influence of the slope angle and the area/position of applied loading on the crest slope by employing the experimental model, Mohr-Coulomb, and hardening soil models. Please address the following comments:

 

1.     The authors should endeavor to put down some numerical values to support their claims in the abstract and conclusion part of the manuscript.

 2.     A correlation was achieved between slope angle 30⁰ and MC and 35⁰ and HSM, what is the significance of these findings, in another way what is the novelty of this research?

 3.     The introductory part of the manuscript should be completed and rewritten citing the abundant work on slope stability, citing relevant and recent work. The references are scanty and inadequate considering your area slope stability analysis. Highlight the gaps in the introduction section and mention how your study is going to address any/some of the gaps.

 4.     In the methodology, why were only 30⁰ and 35⁰ angles of the slope used? What happens when less than 30⁰ or more than 35⁰ are used angles? What prompted the authors to select only two angles of the slope?

 5.     Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part, it seems to be lengthy.

 6.     The conclusion part should enhance your contributions, and limitations, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

 7.     Extensive English language editing and paraphrasing are required.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Detailed responses, as requested, are enclosed in the attached file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is very interesting; however, the authors don’t show the original slope geometry and material properties that will relate directly to the scale down model. They also don’t show the equivalent materials for the scale down model. Furthermore, materials for the slope need to be scale down property to relate the results with the true size slope. Until this information is not presented, it will be hard to evaluate the true effect of the slope. Therefore, the results of this study are questionable.

Below are some comments.

1-      Line 16. "Further, built three-dimensional (3D) numerical models…" Which numerical model??? Write its full name

2-      I suggest modifying the introduction. Sort the used sources from old to new. Research innovation should be presented with a technical reason.

3-      Line 90-91. Use m or cm.

4-      What is the reason for choosing the size of the experimental model? Why only 30 and 35 degree angles have been investigated?

5-      Use the same unit throughout the text. Cm or m…..

6-       Instead of Photo 1, Figure  2 should be written.

7-      Instead of using a photo, use a Figure .

8-      The description and method of the experimental and numerical work should be given in the materials and methods section.

9-      The results are also in the discussion and result section.

10-   The numerical model should be introduced in full. The choice of fine mesh, verification and.... is unclear.

11-   The authors note that Mohr Coulomb has better results, but the graphs do not show this.

12-   I suggest that it should be shown with statistical indicators, the percentage of relative error, and the amount of difference ……, both experimental and numerical.

Author Response

Deailed reponses, as requested, are enclosed in the attached file. Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the replies in the attached file.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the issues raised, I therefore admired their efforts in trying bring out the novelty of their work.

Author Response

Please see the replies to reviewer in the attached file.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The author's improvement the manuscript and can be publishing after minor revised:

1-     In line 21-22: write full name of model. For example: Have you simulated with Slop/w?

2-     It is suggested to use new sources. 2021-2022-2023.

3-     One unit should be used throughout the text. In some pages, cm are used and in some pages, m are used. See line 388-389.

Author Response

Please see the replies to reviewer in the attached file.

Thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx