Dynamic Response Law and Failure Mechanism of Slope with Weak Interlayer under Combined Action of Reservoir Water and Seismic Force
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic addressed in the manuscript is potentially interesting. However, there are some concerns which are required to be addressed by the authors for further proceeding:
- In the first place, I would encourage the authors to summarise the abstract by reporting the key results. In addition, abstract is missing short conclusion that can be drawn from main finding. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly in abstract.
- The Introduction section needs a major revision. Problem statement can be highlighted more clearly. The motivation and contribution should be stated more clearly.
- Literature review shall be revised by referring more recent studies.
- Methodology section is missing. It is an important part.
- The discussion of result can be more comprehensive. It should be written in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why and how the results are achieved. It is important to provide strong discussion rather than that are simply collection and reporting the results.
- The conclusion need to highlight the key results to answer the objective the deep and details. Some parts in the current conclusions can be removed. The current form is too long. Please revise the conclusion accordingly.
- Please increase the number of references that have been published recently (within the last three years).
- Most of the references are from one country. Should include the study by authors from other countries or regions.
- An aesthetic factor is the length of paragraphs which should not be too short or too long.
Should be proofread by English native speaker.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In the first place, I would encourage the authors to summarise the abstract by reporting the key results. In addition, abstract is missing short conclusion that can be drawn from main finding. The contribution of the study should be explained simply and clearly in abstract.
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has made revisions to the abstract section of the article, summarized the conclusions drawn from the article, and highlighted the main innovative points of the article.
Point 2: The Introduction section needs a major revision. Problem statement can be highlighted more clearly. The motivation and contribution should be stated more clearly.
Response 2: In response to the opinions raised by the experts, the author has made modifications to the introduction section, added research motivation in the problem statement section, and explained the unique contribution of this study in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Point 3: Literature review shall be revised by referring more recent studies.
Response 3: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has added relevant references from the past three years in the literature review section.
Point 4: Methodology section is missing. It is an important part.
Response 4: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author added a method section in Chapter 2, including: how to obtain relevant formulas for rock mass parameters, relevant formulas for similarity relationships, and the order of loading different earthquake and reservoir water conditions.
Point 5: The discussion of result can be more comprehensive. It should be written in a more highlighting, argumentative way. The author should analysis the reason why and how the results are achieved. It is important to provide strong discussion rather than that are simply collection and reporting the results.
Response 5: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has added some analysis and discussion to the results section of Chapters 3 and 4.
Point 6: The conclusion need to highlight the key results to answer the objective the deep and details. Some parts in the current conclusions can be removed. The current form is too long. Please revise the conclusion accordingly.
Response 6: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author reduced the conclusion part and highlighted the key results of the article.
Point 7: Please increase the number of references that have been published recently (within the last three years).
Response 7: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has added dozens of relevant references from the past three years.
Point 8: Most of the references are from one country. Should include the study by authors from other countries or regions.
Response 8: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author referred to relevant research by authors from other countries and regions.
Point 9: The aesthetic factor is the length of the paragraph and should not be too short or too long.
Response 9: The author adjusted the length of each paragraph in the article based on the opinions provided by experts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The goal that the author wants to achieve is not closely combined with the actual experiment, that is, the experimental data does not support the experimental conclusion, or the data and the conclusion are not interconnected.
Reason 1
The research purpose set by this paper is to study the dynamic response law and failure mechanism of slopes with weak interlayers under the combined action of reservoir water and seismic forces.
Key conclusions given by the authors:
1 .When considering the siltation effect 19 of reservoir water on weak interlayers, as the input vertical seismic acceleration increases, the 20 amplitude of PGA changes at the top and middle of the slope gradually increases, while the 21 amplitude of PGA changes at the foot of the slope gradually decreases
2 .The failure mode of the slope is: earthquake action causes cracking in the upper part of the slope, and as the earthquake increases and the infiltration of reservoir water intensifies, the cracks expand. The soft and muddy interlayer in the front section of the slope forms a sliding surface, and ultimately the sliding failure forms an accumulation body at the foot of the slope.
However, throughout the writing, there is insufficient focus on weak interlayers and the action of reserve water. For example, monitoring points A8, A10, A12, A13, and A14 in Figure 4 are located on the weak interlayer, which should be the focus of this article and will not be mentioned in the following text.
Reason 2: The details of the article are not enough and the discussion is not clear
Line 115 The physical and mechanical parameters of rock mass with weak interlayer in reservoir area for calculation and analysis are determined as shown in Table 1 by comprehensively considering indoor tests and field tests such as deformation of rock mass, shear resistance of rock mass and weak surface, and consulting recommended values of various codes and empirical values of hydraulic manuals.
The detailed process for obtaining these parameters and related formulas should be explained in detail so that it will also be valuable to readers as well.
Line 130 based on the main similarity rates of model tests and repeated matching tests, the material rates corresponding to the physical and mechanical parameters of each rock layer in the model are determined (see Table 3). And also the detailed calculation process and related formulas are also required
Line 171 From Figure 7, it can be seen that indicating that the mudding effect of reservoir water has a significant amplification effect on the PGA of the slope. The sedimentation of reservoir water also has a certain influence on the PGA distribution of slope, and the enlarged area of PGA in the slope increases obviously after the sedimentation. How are the observed phenomena presented in Figure 7 and what are the characteristics that indicate these phenomena? It wasn't clear.
Line 257 The acceleration in Y direction of the lower rock mass of weak interlayer tens to in-257 increase in the slope, which indicates that the lower part of the slope is feasible to be dam-258 aged when vertical earth is involved. Which point and feature are reflected from Figure 12
Line 265 In order to analyze the influence of mud in front section of tuff interlayer on slope response, different vertical seismic accelerations are input to carry out slope dynamic response calculation. Through analysis of Figure 13(a) and (b), the weak interlayer in front section of slope is affected by mud and not by mud. Figure 13 is the data of which monitoring point, and how can it represent the characteristics of mud and tuff interlayers, how to draw some conclusions in the article? This is not clearly explained.
Author Response
Point 1: Throughout the writing, there is insufficient focus on weak interlayers and the action of reserve water.
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author added the content of analysis on the dynamic response of slope caused by weak interlayer and water level change, and emphasized the innovation and importance of the paper.
Point 2: For example, monitoring points A8, A10, A12, A13, and A14 in Figure 4 are located on the weak interlayer, which should be the focus of this article and will not be mentioned in the following text.
Response 2: In response to the opinions raised by experts, as cardboard was used to replace the soft interlayer in the model test, no monitoring points were placed in the soft interlayer. Therefore, the influence of soft interlayer on the slope was analyzed mainly through the acceleration change of the monitoring points on the slope surface. The analysis of soft interlayer is added to the numerical simulation, and some conclusions are drawn: soft interlayer has a certain energy absorption effect. When the soft interlayer is mudded by the change of water level, the energy absorption effect of soft interlayer is further reduced, and thus the dynamic response at the foot of slope changes dramatically.
Point 3: The details of the article are not enough and the discussion is not clear.
Response 3: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has added some analysis and discussion to the results section of Chapters 3 and 4. The paper mainly analyzes the variation law of soft interlayer under water level change and earthquake, and emphasizes the innovation of the paper.
Point 4: The detailed process for obtaining these parameters and related formulas should be explained in detail so that it will also be valuable to readers as well.
Response 4: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author adds related formulas for parameter acquisition.
Point 5: Line 130 based on the main similarity rates of model tests and repeated matching tests, the material rates corresponding to the physical and mechanical parameters of each rock layer in the model are determined (see Table 3). And also the detailed calculation process and related formulas are also required
Response 5: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author adds the detailed calculation process and related formulas.
Point 6: Line 171 From Figure 7, it can be seen that indicating that the mudding effect of reservoir water has a significant amplification effect on the PGA of the slope. The sedimentation of reservoir water also has a certain influence on the PGA distribution of slope, and the enlarged area of PGA in the slope increases obviously after the sedimentation. How are the observed phenomena presented in Figure 7 and what are the characteristics that indicate these phenomena? It wasn't clear.
Response 6: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author added the analysis of Figure 7, analyzed the influence of water level change on the slope, and reached certain conclusions.
Point 7: Line 257 The acceleration in Y direction of the lower rock mass of weak interlayer tens to in-257 increase in the slope, which indicates that the lower part of the slope is feasible to be dam-258 aged when vertical earth is involved. Which point and feature are reflected from Figure 12
Response 7: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author adds an analysis of Figure 12 to explain the change in the Y direction.
Point 8: Line 265 In order to analyze the influence of mud in front section of tuff interlayer on slope response, different vertical seismic accelerations are input to carry out slope dynamic response calculation. Through analysis of Figure 13(a) and (b), the weak interlayer in front section of slope is affected by mud and not by mud. Figure 13 is the data of which monitoring point, and how can it represent the characteristics of mud and tuff interlayers, how to draw some conclusions in the article? This is not clearly explained.
Response 8: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author added the analysis of Figure 13, which is the data of monitoring points on the slope surface. Through comparison and analysis with Figure 12, the correlation law of the weak interlayer was obtained, and some conclusions were added.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this paper, the characteristics of mud action and the dynamic characteristics of seismic forces on weak interlayer slope were considered. large-scale shaking table test and finite element numerical simulation were carried out. The dynamic response laws of reservoir water under different earthquake actions and the permanent displacement changes of weak interlayer slope under earthquake load are defined, and the mud action and dynamic response and regularity and ring breaking mechanism to slope under different earthquake actions are revealed. In reviewer's view, the paper is interesting and worth for publication in the journal. However, following comments are advised to be considered before acceptance:
1. Some of the references are incorrectly formatted, such as [1], [7] and [9]. Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
2. Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: Introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion. If possible, abstract could be more informative by providing some quantitative results.
3. Please include some of the more recent research developments.
4. The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
5. The basic specifications of the instrument in Figure 3 should be briefly described. How the model size in Figure 4 was determined.
6. In Section 2.5, why is the vertical seismic component set to K times of the horizontal seismic component. Please uniform the expression form of K. For the conditions shown in Figure 7, what is the value of k.
7. The pictures in the text are not clear, and the lines and fonts are blurred.
8. Please explain why the linear elastic model was chosen in Section 4.1.
9. Units are not marked of the model in Figure 10.
10. The conclusion is too long. The authors should add some conclusive analysis.
In this paper, the characteristics of mud action and the dynamic characteristics of seismic forces on weak interlayer slope were considered. large-scale shaking table test and finite element numerical simulation were carried out. The dynamic response laws of reservoir water under different earthquake actions and the permanent displacement changes of weak interlayer slope under earthquake load are defined, and the mud action and dynamic response and regularity and ring breaking mechanism to slope under different earthquake actions are revealed. In reviewer's view, the paper is interesting and worth for publication in the journal. However, following comments are advised to be considered before acceptance:
1. Some of the references are incorrectly formatted, such as [1], [7] and [9]. Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
2. Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: Introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion. If possible, abstract could be more informative by providing some quantitative results.
3. Please include some of the more recent research developments.
4. The second paragraph of the introduction. Please do not include a list of what each scholar has done. Try to combine the work that have done and how is that of benefit to your study.
5. The basic specifications of the instrument in Figure 3 should be briefly described. How the model size in Figure 4 was determined.
6. In Section 2.5, why is the vertical seismic component set to K times of the horizontal seismic component. Please uniform the expression form of K. For the conditions shown in Figure 7, what is the value of k.
7. The pictures in the text are not clear, and the lines and fonts are blurred.
8. Please explain why the linear elastic model was chosen in Section 4.1.
9. Units are not marked of the model in Figure 10.
10. The conclusion is too long. The authors should add some conclusive analysis.
Author Response
Point 1: Some of the references are incorrectly formatted, such as [1], [7] and [9]. Please check the references carefully and modify them according to the format required by this publication.
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The author has modified the format of the document according to the requirements of the publication.
Point 2: Abstract section should be improved considering the following structure: Introduction, problem statement, methodology, results, and conclusion. If possible, abstract could be more informative by providing some quantitative results.
Response 2: In response to the opinions raised by the experts, The author modified the structure and content of the abstract, and gave some quantitative analysis.
Point 3: Please include some of the more recent research developments.
Response 3: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has added dozens of relevant references from the past three years.
Point 4: The basic specifications of the instrument in Figure 3 should be briefly described. How the model size in Figure 4 was determined.
Response 4: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The author modified the literature review part and wrote the help of each reference to me.
Point 5: The basic specifications of the instrument in Figure 3 should be briefly described. How the model size in Figure 4 was determined.
Response 5: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The authors describe the specifications of the instrument in FIG. 3, and the model size in FIG. 4 is determined by the size and similarity ratio of the test model box.
Point 6: In Section 2.5, why is the vertical seismic component set to K times of the horizontal seismic component. Please uniform the expression form of K. For the conditions shown in Figure 7, what is the value of k.
Response 6: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The authors indicate that setting the vertical seismic component as k times the horizontal seismic component is a representation error, and the authors have modified the representation of the input vertical and horizontal seismic waves.
Point 7: The pictures in the text are not clear, and the lines and fonts are blurred.
Response 7: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The author improved the clarity of the text and lines in the pictures.
Point 8: Please explain why the linear elastic model was chosen in Section 4.1.
Response 8: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The authors refer to relevant literature and explain the rationality and advantages of using linear elastic model.
Point 9: Units are not marked of the model in Figure 10.
Response 9: In response to the opinions raised by experts, The author has added units for Figure 10.
Point 9: The conclusion is too long. The authors should add some conclusive analysis.
Response 10: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has deleted the conclusion section and highlighted the main achievements of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper itself is nicely written, but the concept's practicality and applicability are seriously questioned.
1- The first problem is the manuscript's consistently bad English. An abundance of unusual grammatical constructions in English may be found.
2- The abstract does not fully cover the concept of the article. The innovation of the research and the importance of the research should be mentioned in the abstract.
3- The introduction appears to be a substantial component of the work. The study's unique contribution is also becoming less apparent, and it has to be underlined and defended further.
4- Insert the paper outline at the end of Introduction.
5- Table 1: check the Cohesion.
6- Authors should state their reasons for using the Linear Elastic Model. Please add the suitable references.
7- In Fig 14: Authors can do better by properly discussing the results, possible reasons for the results and their implications.
8- It would be great to provide a limitation of the study.
For example:
Instead of this:
The earth's crust is moving vigorously in southwest of our country, with frequent strong earthquakes, and large crustal uplift has formed the features of hills, rivers deeply embedded and high and steep slopes.
with,
The earth's crust is moving vigorously in the southwest of our country, with frequent strong earthquakes. Large crustal uplift has formed the features of hills, rivers deeply embedded, and high and steep slopes.
For example:
Instead of this:
2.2. The physical parameters of each rock layer are determined
2.2. Determining the physical parameters of each rock layer
Author Response
Point 1: The first problem is the manuscript's consistently bad English. An abundance of unusual grammatical constructions in English may be found.
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has asked native English speakers to proofread.
Point 2: The abstract does not fully cover the concept of the article. The innovation of the research and the importance of the research should be mentioned in the abstract.
Response 2: In response to the opinions raised by the experts, the author rewrites the abstract, emphasizing the innovation and the key of the article.
Point 3: The introduction appears to be a substantial component of the work. The study's unique contribution is also becoming less apparent, and it has to be underlined and defended further.
Response 3: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has revised the introduction to emphasize the unique contribution of the article.
Point 4: Insert the paper outline at the end of Introduction.
Response 4: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author adds a thesis outline at the end of the introduction.
Point 5: Table 1: check the Cohesion.
Response 5: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the expression of cohesion was examined and modified.
Point 6: Authors should state their reasons for using the Linear Elastic Model. Please add the suitable references.
Response 6: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the authors refer to relevant literature and explain the rationality and advantages of using linear elastic model.
Point 7: In Fig 14: Authors can do better by properly discussing the results, possible reasons for the results and their implications.
Response 7: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author discusses Figure 14, analyzing the causes and effects of the figure.
Point 8: It would be great to provide a limitation of the study.
Response 8: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author adds some limitations at the end of the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Glad to see a significant improvement has been made and all the comments have been addressed properly. The article can be accepted for publication.
English needs proofread by native speaker
Author Response
Point 1: English needs to be proofread by native speakers
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author invited native English speakers to review the article and added proofs of polishing in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments satisfactorily. I recommended it to be accepted at this point.
The English language still needs moderate editing.
Author Response
Point 1: English needs proofread by native speaker
Response 1: In response to the opinions raised by experts, the author has invited native English speakers to proofread the article, and the proof of polishing has been added to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It can be accepted in the current version.
Author Response
The author has invited native English speakers to proofread the article, and the proof of polishing has been added to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
