Post Evaluation of Slope Cutting on Loess Slopes under Long-Term Rainfall Based on a Model Test
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, by using a real loess slope treated by slope cutting in Shaanxi Province as the test subject, indoor geotechnical tests and model tests were performed to reveal the rainwater infiltration characteristics and pressure-varying characteristics inside the slope, the results of which were used to conduct a postevaluation of the slope in site. The author has carried out a lot of research work and these research work has certain innovation. This manuscript can be accepted after minor modifications:
(1) In line 36-60: The author presented many previous research results in slope stability evaluation under rainfall and its failure mechanism. However, the author does not consider the latest research results in this field. For example, Shen et al. also explored the influence of matrix suction on geological disasters:
SWCC of calcareous silty sand under different fines contents and dry densities. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2021, 9: 682907. DOI:10.3389/fenvs.2021.682907.
(2) In the introduction: What is the innovation of this research?
(3) In line 137-138: The three platforms of the slope model were about 0.38 m, while the gradients of the three grades of the slope were identically of 56°. Why are the slopes set to 56°? Is there any special reason for this setting?
(4) In line 157-158: Synchronously, inner displacement marks were set with colored sand particles next to the two side walls of the model box. What are the functions of these markers?
(5) In line 172-173: The cohesion and internal friction angle of the soil were obtained from the direct shear test of quick shear. Why are these parameters not obtained by slow shear test, but by quick shear test?
(6) In Section 4：The author has made a long description of slope changes during rainfall. What is the essential reason of slope instability caused by rainfall?
(7) In line 486-487: In summary, induced by the release of in situ stress, the soil pressures in the slope model declined but did not increase. Is it possible that the earth pressure gauge is not in good contact with the soil?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled “ Post evaluation of slope cutting on loess slopes under long-term rainfall based on a model test” has analyzed the real slope (Prototype) in Luochuan County, Yan'an city, Shaanxi Prov and lab model. The analysis is conducted employing conventional approaches. The work seems fairly enough but the writing is very poor. It seems like translated from another language using google translator. The terms used are not appropriate and it is not in understandable form. It may be publishable only after major revisions. My comments are listed below.
1. The manuscript is haphazardly written. The words are not properly selected for example, in abstract in line 10, test subject can be replaced with prototype as later used in the body.
2. In line 48 and 49, “it was feasible to combine the imperatively monitored pore water pressures with the monitored stresses to establish a slope failure warning system” Does it mean that it is not feasible now?? Please improve the sentence structure. There are many other very poorly written sentences for example in line 84 and 85 what does it mean by elevation fluctuates around 1100 m, does it mean the relief of Luochuan County or the elevation?? Similarly in line 93 what does it mean by hollowed out ?? does it mean drained out?? The sentence is not understandable.
3. Line 91 and 92 is not correct grammatically. There are too many grammatically incorrect sentences.
4. Line 97, the first part has not connection with second part.
5. You can replace the term “indoor test” by laboratory test.
6. Line 173. Why is there of quick shear at the end of the sentence, does it have any meaning??
7. I would suggest writing all the symbols used in equations in italics in the text. Currently some of them are italics while some other are not.
8. line 236, 237, 238 have many mistakes.
9. The last part of line 242 and 243 can be replaced with “their original values were measured.”
10. There are too many mistakes difficult to list out all of them.
11. Line 301: instead of born you can use the term developed.
12. I strongly recommend using the reference “KC, D.; Dangi, H.; Hu, L. Assessing Landslide Susceptibility in the Northern Stretch of Arun Tectonic Window, Nepal. CivilEng 2022, 3, 525-540. https://doi.org/10.3390/civileng3020031” This paper has reported the occurrence of landslides closer to natural drainage which is possibly due to slope saturation and increase in pore water pressure in the slopes.
13. Line 287 what does it mean by five and two tenths hours later?? You can write in in hours and minutes or simply 5.2.
14. Line 432 and 433, how does rainfall increase soil pressure, and shear stress? Do you have any mathematical relationship for that statement? Isn’t it the effective stress that plays role which is independent of water surface elevation??
15. Line 457: past tense of lead is led not leaded.
16. Line 480: necessitated replace this word.
17. Line 485-486: over the entirety of the second round should be over the entire second round.
18. Replace the word postevaluation by post evaluation throughout the manuscript.
19. The analysis of increase in pore water pressure and landslide occurrence is not performed well? Can it be included??
20. The conclusions are not understandable. Please improve them.
Note: This manuscript can’t be published in current form. I strongly suggest asking help from native English speaker to improve the quality. I honestly did not understand many parts of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I am happy with the effort made by the authors. The updated version is well written and understandable. The manuscript can be published although there it is not very novel but the following issues must be addressed before publication.
Table 1: Value of permeability coefficient 5.4×10-4; -4 must be superscript. In the unit KPa or MPa; a should be normal not subscript.
Line: 605: Section 5.4 is awkward. The repeating same word (post-evaluation) in the heading seems awkward. Please change the heading. Can the heading be “Post evaluation of results” as the flowchart (framework) is within the Post evaluation of results? You can also consider changing the word framework to flowchart.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
