Quick Extraction of Joint Surface Attitudes and Slope Preliminary Stability Analysis: A New Method Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 3D Photogrammetry and GIS Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a well-crafted paper and demonstrates a commendable level of clarity and coherence. The introduction is detailed, offering a thorough exploration of the background of assessing rock mass stability method, current state of research of the combination of UAV photogrammetry and rock slope stability analysis, and the specific problem being addressed when using UAV photogrammetry.

However, the following minor issues need to be revised.

1. In the Part of Introduction, P2, Line 56, the research cases of UAV photogrammetry are quite enough and detailed. But the introduction of SfM technology may be a little abrupt, which is not very relevant to the context.

 2. Methodological description provides a solid foundation for understanding the conducted experiments. The step-by-step explanation of the procedures and the detailed explanation of the principle about stereographic projection and kinematic analysis, both ensure readers can easily follow the methodology.

 However, there are some minor redundancies in the language used within this section. For instance, In P4, Part 2.1, from Line 150 to Line 162, the description of TFP and PSSP should be more precise.

 3. The most sentences are clear and concise, but there are also some places where the expression is too simple and not formal enough, such as, In P2, Line 75 “Because …” and In P4, Line 169 “Because …” and In P12, Line 422 “you should …” and In P16, Line 551 “UAV equipment is often very …”, which are typical oral expressions.

 4. The figures are great, and the interpretations of the figures are also accurate. It’s better to enlarge the fronts in figures and increase clarity of figures by using vectograph.

 5. The math equation expression is clear in paper. It will be better to improve the alignment in P6, Equation(5).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and professional advice, which is very important to improve the quality of our articles. Please check Section 'For Reviewer 1' in the attachment, which contains the reply to your suggestions and our specific changes in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a proposed method for conducting a UAV photogrammetric survey of a rock slope followed by extraction of joint surfaces, stereographic projections of the joint surfaces, and completion of a kinematic rock slope stability analysis.

My largest concern regarding this paper is the lack of evidence validating the proposed methodology. There is no validation of the stated improvement resulting from the TFP and PSSP UAV flight approach and there are important details missing regarding the creation of photogrammetric products form the collected imagery. There is also no validation of the proposed joint surface extraction process developed by the authors. 

There have been a lot of studies over the years focused on rock slope characterization with 3D point cloud technologies including both lidar and photogrammetry. I recommend the authors work to have a more complete literature review regarding this topic. I have provided some relevant citations in my uploaded PDF comments.

I also think the authors should address some of the existing software solutions for extracting joint surfaces from point cloud data and auto-generation of stereographic plots. Some that come to mind are Split-FX, which I think was purchased by Hexagon at some point and some of the free plugins available in CloudCompare.

Please refer to the uploaded PDF copy of the manuscript for my detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I made some corrections here and there, but the entire manuscript needs extensive proof reading for English grammar and typos.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and professional advice, which is very important to improve the quality of our articles. Please check Section 'For Reviewer 2' in the attachment, which contains the reply to your suggestions and our specific changes in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author proposes a preliminary analysis method for extracting surface structures and evaluating slope stability using drone photogrammetry and GIS technology. However, I have also identified some areas that need improvement and refinement:

 

Firstly, enhancing image resolution.

What is the difference in principle between TFP and PSSP, and how much does it affect the evaluation results of structural planes?

What is the basis for dividing plane sliding and bending toppling failure?

Based on spatial distribution, stereographic analysis and kinematic analysis, the slope stability is conducted. Relying solely on structural planes for stability evaluation is insufficient and cannot reflect the physical and mechanical mechanisms of slope failure.

Insufficient discussion on drone photogrammetry, including its data processing process.

When introducing the research background and related work, the paper did not fully elaborate on the existing research results and methods, nor did it provide a detailed description of drone photogrammetry and GIS technology. In order to help readers better understand the innovation and application significance of this study, it is recommended to add an introduction to relevant theoretical foundations in the introduction and literature review sections.

The paper mentions the use of drone photogrammetry to obtain surface structure information, but does not mention the collection method, data processing steps, and accuracy and reliability verification of experimental data. In the methodology section, it is recommended to provide a detailed description of the specific operational steps of the experiment and provide quality control and validation methods for the experimental data.

The paper briefly introduces the analysis results of joint surface structure and slope stability, but does not provide a detailed explanation and analysis of the results. In the Results and Discussion section, it is recommended to provide a more detailed interpretation of the extracted surface structural features and slope stability evaluation results, and compare and discuss them with existing research to verify the accuracy and reliability of this method.

Lack of case studies and application validation: The paper does not provide specific case studies and application validation, which cannot fully demonstrate the application value of this method in practical engineering practice. Suggest adding relevant case studies in the discussion section or providing further field validation data to verify the applicability and practicality of this method.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and professional advice, which is very important to improve the quality of our articles. Please check Section 'For Reviewer 3' in the attachment, which contains the reply to your suggestions and our specific changes in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relationship between the statistics of structural planes and slope stability still needs further clarification.

It is insufficient to simply evaluate slope stability based on the measurement and statistical analysis of structural plane orientation.

The evaluation results of slope stability need to be demonstrated by other methods. Otherwise, the results of this article are not convincing enough.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

should be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for your careful reading and professional advice, which is very important to improve the quality of our articles. Please check Section 'For Reviewer 3' in the attachment, which contains the reply to your suggestions and our specific changes in the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx