Slope Stability and Effectiveness of Treatment Measures during Earthquake

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper contains some new materials. However, some things need to be clarified. 

 

Therefore, the authors should update the paper by incorporating my suggestions.

 

- What problem was studied, and why is it important? 

 

- What methods were used?

- What are the significant results?

 

- What is the novelty of the work, and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature?

- What does the current paper add to the subject area compared with other published studies?

 

- The paper's results pave the way to new avenues that are fully awaited. Therefore, future works should be added in the conclusion part.

 

- The changes made based on the comments should be written in red color.

 

- The programming codes developed for this study should be provided within the paper.

 It will help researchers replicate the results of this paper and help them carry out this study to the next level.

- Authors numbered all equations in the paper; they must number the referred equations in the paper only.

 

- The English writing can be improved as some typos have been noticed in the manuscript; please correct all of them for the resubmission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The treatments in the earthquake case of slopes were studied with the numerical simulation. A major revision is suggested. The comments are listed as follows. 

(1) Line 10: where has frequent earthquakes -> where earthquakes occur frequently

(2) Line 11: FLAC2D or FLAC3D?

(3) Line 11: is employed for numerical simulation to explore stability  -> was employed in the numerical simulation to explore the stability

(4) In the abstract, the three treatments were viewed as effective. However, the treatments are also well popular in the engineering. So which one is best? Could authors give suggestions in the selection of the treatments?

(5) Please discuss the advantage and novelty of this study in the introduction.

(6) The stress concentration generally causes damages promoting the failure progress (https://doi.org/10.1142/S1758825123500369). The features could be discussed and reviewed. The damage character is a key factor in the failure in the geotechnical engineering. Plz refer to Lateral abutment pressure distribution and evolution in wide pillars under the first mining effect.

(7) Have the earthquake happened in Fig. 7? Which case and what time?

(8) The dynamic response was studied. However, the loading rate and other factors influencing the failure are suggested to be given. The loading rate has an important effect on the crack stress threshold and the damage mechanism. Plz refer to Experimental investigation of the strain rate effect on crack initiation and crack damage thresholds of hard rock under quasi-static compression.

(9) Line 141: Is the M-C model suitable for this case? Most geomaterials have strong strain-softening behaviours.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Major corrections are required for the publication of this manuscript entitled “Slope Stability and Effectiveness of Treatment Measures during Earthquake”.

1. Abstract: This section doesn't highlight enough the novelty of this described manuscript. The exact applications of the study findings are also not emphasized enough which is insufficient to frame the whole picture of the present study.
2. Improve the language of manuscript.
3.  Major structural changes are required and paragraphs are in general too short. Add more information.
4. Improve the introduction section with latest references.
5. The discussion presented is very weak no strong comparison has been made with the literature to support the authenticity of the obtained results. Therefore, the authors are suggested to discuss their results with recent researches.
6. Write the abbreviations used in manuscript firstly then used short form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the revision. The manuscript is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have improved the manuscript as per reviewer suggestions.