Geotechnical Characterisation of Flysch-Derived Colluvial Soils from a Pre-Alpine Slope Affected by Recurrent Landslides

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented in this manuscript a more in-depth and of certain significance study on the geotechnical characterisation of flysh-derived colluvial soils from a pre-alpine slope affected by recurrent landsliding. The authors performed a great number of high-quality field and laboratory tests. This paper is well-written and well-organised. Only a minor revision is recommended. The following points should be addressed:

 ·       The abstract contains too much content, which is supposed to be condensed.

·         Figure 1 appears in the text before it was cited.

 ·   Could be helpful for the reader to show the results of shear strength tests in graphic format for some relevant test to highlight the behaviour exhibited by the soil.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached the response to Reviewer 1.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Landslides are natural hazards that cause losses in the natural environment and infrastructure. Knowledge of geotechnical and hydrological parameters of a given terrain are the basis for forecasting the occurrence of these hazards and risk evaluation. Hydrogeological recognition of the landslide area, confirmed by appropriate tests of geotechnical parameters, is the most important factor for correctly assessing landslide hazard and effectively stabilizing active landslides. The issue of landslide threats is a serious problem for many regions around the world, e.g. in the flysch Carpathians [recommended paper: Landslide Hazard Assessment Map as an Element Supporting Spatial Planning: The Flysch Carpathians Region Study. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13020317]. However, there are relatively few papers presenting more broadly the research on geotechnical and hydraulic properties, in particular mechanical ones, and their relationship with the formation of landslides.

            The research presents a high scientific level and proves the maturity of the authors' investigation skills. The reported in the paper parameters obtained from the geotechnical and hydraulic characterisation of flysch-derived colluvial materials represent a useful reference for rainfall infiltration modelling and slope stability analyses of colluvial covers. The authors attached great importance to the relationship between geotechnical and hydrological parameters, which is a very right approach. I would like to emphasize the extensive scope and program of performed investigations and analyses (grain size distribution, plasticity, shear strength properties, moisture condition, matric suction, hydraulic conductivity and SWCC Curve). The program of investigations and the selection of methodology play an important role here. Therefore, it is very valuable that the tests of some geotechnical parameters were carried out in parallel using many methods, both laboratory and field methods. The authors compared the obtained results and drew appropriate conclusions.

The graphic, linguistic and editorial aspects of the paper are correct. The form is clear, the content is organized correctly.

 Detailed comments:

1. There is no mention of the method used to test consistency limits.

2. Was the laser method used in granulometric tests to determine the content of finer fractions (silt and clay) or the classic method (which one)?

3. Soil parameters should be obtained after the statistical analysis based on the soil data sets (measured values). The authors did not provide basic statistics such as standard deviation and coefficient of variation.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to Reviewer 2.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

this is a pure geotechnical study - only in the conclusions you provide some indications on how this study could be of a more general interest (use for susceptibility analysis) - but you do not indicate how this can be done.

Note, I think that the scientific soundness of the study is fine, but I would clearly recommend submitting this study to another journal. 

Geosciences is a journal presenting more widely applicable studies, not those focused on one specific small site, with application of one single type of laboratory studies. e.g. Géotechnique might fit better.

yours

reviewer H

Some moderate English editing recommended (see 'higher depths').

Author Response

Please find attached the response to Reviewer 3.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

see my last comments. I don't know why the editor sends this manuscript back to me who recommended another journal for your work.

yours

reviewer H