Algorithm Implementation of Equivalent Expansive Force in Strength Reduction FEM and Its Application in the Stability of Expansive Soil Slope

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is quite an interesting and useful study, written in an accessible and correct way. I have no serious objections to the text besides one general concern:
For a research paper, its structure is a bit strange. Right after the introduction and presentation of the problem, the authors in Chapter 2 gave a broad discussion (which should took place after Results) - and here Authors should focus on describe a little better an area of research (in geographical and climatological meaning) that is mentioned quite a bit in line 181. 

L 456: 161:34–43 - replace colon with comma

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

At the first I would like to thank Authors for interesting manuscript. I have read the work carefully. In my opinion the presented article has been prepared very well. In my opinion the manuscript could be very interesting for researchers who deal similar issues. I had only a few minor comments:

1. Keywords: “Numerical algorithms” are not necessary.
2. In my opinion the Introduction is not section for presenting the formulas (1-3).
3. Chapter 2 should be joined with Introduction.
4. The Authors should clearly highlighted the novelty of conducted work.
5. Chapter 3 should be named “Methodology”.
6. In the chapter 5 the Authors have focused only on results presentation. The results must be supported by wide discussion (comparison with literature)
7. In conclusion I would like to see how the results can be useful for practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a new device to asess the expansive force of matric suction. A FEM analysis is also proposed. The topic is of interest and deserves attention.

However, some weak points can be identified that diminish the value of the paper. I hope the author could defend these points because the manuscript is interesting.

MAIN WEAK POINTS

As far as I understand, you collected a single sample to test your device and to derive parameters for the FEM analysis. Is that correct? I think if you present something new, a wider test should be adopted. Moreover, using a single test to characterize a test site is very risky, you should consider the results from different samples.

Figures 10-12: merge in a single figure with three panels. If you add colors, it could be more attractive.

Figures 13 and 14: You must add colors or values to make the figures fully understandable.

The geometry of sliding surface seems so unrealistic. Almost circular behind the toe of the slope,  with the ending point actually outside the slope and on the plane. Never seen something similar in a real slope. 

I may be mistaken, but the reference list seems full of self-citations. Please select only the relevant ones and add references from other researchers.

Reviewer 2 Report

please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf