Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Soil Slope Stability Subjected to Water Drawdown by Finite Element Limit Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigates the probabilistic stability of embankment slopes subjected to water level drawdown using the random field finite element method (RFEM) with strength reduction technology. This study presents an interesting analysis. However, significant improvements are required before the second round of review.

1. The current study provides an analysis based on a well-established method, the novelty of this study is unclear. Please identify novel aspects and the scope of your work.

2 Literature review needs improvement to consider the following studies related to slope stability for inclusion in the literature review portion of this study.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104947; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0796-z; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100697;

3. Line 18: "Even if the FOSs obtained by the two methods are close, there still exists the possibility of slope failure". This needs more clarification, how did you identify this possibility?

4. Please provide a technical discussion on why FOS obtained from the deterministic analysis is higher than the random field analysis result considering the internal mechanism of these two methods. This will make your article more informative for the readers.

5. Please explain why did you choose the specific slope geometry for the current analysis, and what is its practical significance. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to check the title of this work and complete it, since something is missing.

There must be external criteria or reasons why the RFEM method is preferable to a deterministic method.  A simple comparaison is not enough.

The results are too regular for a random method (stochastic vs. deterministic). Explain why? Explain the origin of the bias between both models.

Check all equations to make sure there are no errors as in (12) and (15).

The section on Monte Carlo simulations should be moved to the Results and Discussion section, and more careful analysis or judgment should be performed so that the above result can be validated for convergence.

All references have to be cited (some are not) and errors corrected as in (Shi et al., 2007).

 

Line 349. What does that mean “As mentioned in chapter 2.4” Is it part of a book?

Line 145. … factor of load, t are the tractions APPLIED on the surface, …

Line 180. Missing point after  ... 2019)

Improve the figures of the shear dissipation energy contours of Figure 12 to facilitate the analysis of the results.

Are the images in Figure 14 correct? Are they inverted?

Line 391. Correct Fig. 9a to Fig. 9

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments in detail. This paper can be accepted for publication in it's current form.