Stability Analysis of the Volcanic Cave El Mirador (Galápagos Islands, Ecuador) Combining Numerical, Empirical and Remote Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, although the work is not an excessively novelty, it is a good work in which different techniques, including remote sensing, are employed to characterize the volcanic cave.

However, there are some main issues that that need to be clarified

General comments:

Comment 1. Apparently (fig 5b) two sets of discontinuities have been detected, however, it seems strange that the fallen blocks shown in figure 4a are generated by two sets of discontinuities, clearly, they are blocks made up of 3 sets. Please, explain this.

Comment 2. On the other hand, the suitability of using H-B criterion to a mass rock with 2 sets of discontinuities should be discussed.

Comment 3. The role that dilatancy plays on the stability of blocks with relatively shallow cavities should be discussed. In this sense, some data on the roughness profile of the discontinuities involved in the stability/instability of the blocks should be added.

Comment 4. The choice of 2D software on a clearly three-dimensional problem should be discussed.

Comment 5. Although I am not an expert in the English language, I think it is important that your manuscript will be reviewed by a native speaker with technical knowledge in this field.

 

Minor comments

What is the role in this paper the colours chart inserted on table 1?

Please, revise symbols in table 2

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks for your constructive revision, which allowed to improve our work. We have replied point by point and we have modified the text in accordance with your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very good paper. I accept this paper for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thanks for your revision

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research is very interesting and relevant, but I believe that including a discussion section in which the authors compare the different methods used and how they complement each other would greatly improve the manuscript. The conclusions, in my opinion, should be more ambitious and suggest how these methods can be applied to the rest of the studied tunnel and to other volcanic caves. My detailed comments can be found in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thanks for your constructive revision, which allowed to improve our work. We have replied point by point and we have modified the text in accordance with your observations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

In my opinion, the previous concerns have been conveniently argued and the text modified accordingly, so I think the manuscript is ready for publication.

No additional comments about your work.
Congratulations

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe the manuscript is ready for publishing with only a few minor changes. I did the virtual tour and thoroughly appreciated it. Congratulations!

Please check "stabble" (line 331), "show" (line 371), "is" (line 379).