The Impact of Fine-Layering of Tailings Dam on the Variation Pattern of Infiltration Lines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should revise the Introduction chapter.

The authors should justify their findings with previous studies.

Please remove the unnecessary Figs.

The overall manuscript is very well written.

The manuscript can be accepted after including all minor comments.

Minor editing of the English language required

Author Response

Respondence to the referee’s comments

(1) The Introduction chapter has been rewritten on lines 30-31, 35-39, 46-48, and 54-68.

(2) The previous studies have been added on lines 172-175, and lines 263-265.

(3) Figs in this manuscript have been revise so that their respective meanings are more obvious.

(4) Thanks for your recognition.

(5) Thanks for your recognition.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please provide in Section 3 more results in the form of graphs .

Please change the resolution of Figures 5-13.

Author Response

Respondence to the referee’s comments

(1) In Section 3, Table 3 and Table 4 have been revised as Figure 11 and Figure 15, respectively.

(2) Figures 5-13 have been revised.

Reviewer 3 Report

-At the end of the introduction, talk about what you are trying to achieve in the article and how it will be done.

-Lines from 87 to 90, it seems that the description does not match table 1.

-In Figure 1, a black line appears, which does not indicate what it represents.

-Explain how the different layers are distributed, the different types of soils, shown in figures 2 and 3.

In figures 1, 2,3,4,5,6 and 7, when you place the cursor over them, legends appear apparently in Chinese language.

-Specify in more detail the methodology and elements used for the simulation carried out to arrive at the graphs.

-Improve table 3

Author Response

Respondence to the referee’s comments

(1) The sentences have been added on lines 58-68, which show how to build the model, how to simulate and what can be obtained from this paper.

(2) The contents have been revised in Table 1 and line 101.

(3) Figure 1 has been revised.

(4) The contents have been added on lines 100-103 and the last line of Table 1.

(5) Figures 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 have been revised.

(6) The contents have been added on lines 121-128.

(7) Table 3 has been replaced by Figure 11 to improve the visualization of the data.

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is very practical and important

 This paper is about “The type of soil and its compactness significantly influence its permeability coefficient, which in turn affects the drainage difficulty of soil pore water and the distribution of the infiltration line. However, current tailings dam models typically consider only a single soil layer instead of taking into account the differences in soil types and compactness, resulting in a deviation between simulated results and actual conditions. To address this issue, this study proposes three different layering schemes based on soil types and compactness. These models aim to simulate the variations in the infiltration line under three different strategies: constant head, rainfall, and drainage. The simulation results indicate that: The higher the refinement level of the layered model, the greater the compactness of the tailings and the smaller the permeability coefficient. Furthermore, as the refinement level of the layered model increases, the simulation effect on the changes in the infiltration line improves, and the simulated results become more consistent with the actual situation. The refined stratification models of tailing dams based on soil types and compactness provide an effective approach for studying the infiltration line and ensuring the safety and stability of tailings dams.”

 This manuscript need major revisions. Comments are as follow:

1-  Authors are recommended to write more about novelty of the manuscript.

2-  Authors are recommended to discuss the obtained results with literature in more detail.

3-  It is recommended to prepare a table in the introduction section and mention previous research in it.

4-  The quality of texts in some figures, including figures 11 and 12 and 13, is low. It is recommended to use larger font size.

5-  Font size and format are different in different figures. It is recommended to use the same format in all figures.

6-  Considering the importance of part “Methods” section, it is recommended to provide more complete explanations in this regard.

7-  It is suggested that a number of recent papers that are new and have been published in the last five years be used in the introduction and references list.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Respondence to the referee’s comments

(1) The contents have been added on lines 17-24 and lines 59-65.

(2) The previous studies have been added on lines 172-175, and lines 263-265.

(3) Previous researches are summarized in the introduction section on lines 43-59 of the text, therefore the table has not been prepared.

(4) Figures 5-7, 8-10, and 12-14 have been revised.

(5) The font size and format have been revised in each figures and tables.

(6) The contents have been added on lines 121-128.

(7) The references have been added on the references list 15-29.

Reviewer 5 Report

Review of

The impact of fine-layering of tailings dam on the variation pattern of infiltration line

I am assigned the duty of reviewing the manuscript titled ‘Review of The impact of fine-layering of tailings dam on the variation pattern of infiltration line’. The manuscript has multiple issues that lead to my conclusion of ‘Major Revision’. The detailed comments are as follows:

Comment 1: The abstract should include some details of the results. Also, the author can suggest the utility of their paper.

Comment 2: Check Lines 27-28 for its meaning.

Comment 3: Provide some background about the Infiltration Line.

Comment 4: L40-41: Provide a reference for this sentence.

Comment 5: Literature review is written in a very poor manner. A significant improvement is needed in the literature review. The authors should discuss the broad literature about the topic and then narrow it down to the get some research gaps.

Comment 6: The figure used in the result section are of poor quality. The legends are not visible.

Comment 7: There is a need to introduce a methodology section in detail.

Comment 8: Discussion section is missing. The authors should compare their results with some international and domestic studies.

Comment 9: A minor check of the grammatical errors is required.

Comment 10: The paper is purely based on the some software based simulation. The results should be validated with some experimentation.

Comment 11: The number of references is very small and should be increased by improving the literature review

*******ALL THE BEST**********************************************

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Respondence to the referee’s comments

(1) The contents have been added on lines 17-24.

(2) The sentences have been revised on lines 30-31.

(3) The contents of infiltration line have been added on lines 36-43.

(4) The sentences have been revised on lines 46-48, and added the references 20-22, 24, and 29.

(5) The Introduction chapter has been rewritten on lines 30-31, 35-39, 46-48, and 54-68.

(6) Figures have been revised.

(7) The contents have been added on lines 121-128.

(8) The discussion section and the results section have been combined in this paper, and some references have been added to justify the results on lines 172-175, and lines 263-265.

(9) The grammatical errors have been revised.

(10) The previous experiments have been added on lines 172-175, and lines 263-265.

(11) The references have been added on the references list 15-29.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper can be published in its present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

All of the comments have been mentioned in the revised manuscript.

In my opinion manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for considering all the comments. The paper can be accepted in the current form.

Fine