Slope Stability Analysis for a Large Hydropower Station in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is interesting. However, this paper is like a research report and lack the deep analysis for example why mode II is better than mode one. what's more, the wrong spell is too much such as "4.2.2.. Stability Analysis under design earthquake" in line 325; "0+062 of the switch station is less than 1.05 is only 0.8s" in line 397, "of stability s factor" in line 404. In addition，the first letter of the word in the table should be capitalized.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your time and effort given to the review of our paper. Your comments have helped us strengthen our manuscript from several points. We have carefully addressed your comments one by one. Please refer to the response document for details. Thanks again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors!
Many questions arose during the study of the manuscript. But the reviewer decided to focus on the main ones.
1. Before calculating the stability of the slope, it is necessary to present the geological structure of the slope - not verbally, but in the form of a picture. In this case, the designations of soils and their description should be given.
2. The calculated characteristics of the parameters of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils that make up the slope must be presented for a given geological structure. Without this information, it is impossible to verify the validity of any calculation.
3. The text indicates such a factor as the level of groundwater, which affects the stability of the slope. However, it is not clear what kind of groundwater it is, at what depth it is distributed, etc. There is no detailed information on accounting for groundwater levels in the calculations.
4. It is not entirely clear why exactly two models were chosen for the stability calculation? What explains this?
5. It becomes clear from the text that the considered slope has faults, which complicates the calculation. Did you take into account the fractures of the slope in your calculations? Since it is she who should determine the choice of the calculation model for the analysis of slope stability.
6. It is also not clear from the text how the influence of seismicity is taken into account - by a correction factor or how?
The above comments do not allow verification of the calculations performed and the conclusions drawn.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your time and effort given to the review of our paper. Your comments have helped us strengthen our manuscript from several points. We have carefully addressed your comments one by one. Please refer to the response document for details. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented a finite element analysis to investigate the slope stability for a hydropower station in China. The manuscript is well written and deserves publication by the journal. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed by the authors to improve the quality of their manuscript:
1. The abstract doesn't summarize the work reported in the manuscript; the reader needs a sentence or two of background before going into the subject matter.
2. There are some typos and grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript, I suggest that the authors go through the text one or more times to clean and fix everything.
3. The most important part of the manuscript, which is Section 3 deserves a great re-consideration.
- The Rigid Body Limit Equilibrium Method is new to the reviewer and it is probably for many of the journal's readers. I suggest to devout a subsection to briefly lay out the principles/steps of the method
- The finite element model was not discussed comprehensively. Any FEA should be reported carefully for the readers who wish to repeat the analysis. For instance, the element type(s), the material properties, the type of analysis, the boundary conditions, the assumptions to simplify the modeling and simulation, etc.
4. Subsection 3.3 is not clear. Re-write the numbered items as they are not readable.
5. The factor of safety of 1.05 seems to be low. How is it an acceptable level?
6. Provide the earthquake ground motions (ground acceleration time histories) and their frequency content.
7. Provide the dynamic properties of the finite element model. Have you validated the periods of vibration with ambient vibration tests?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your time and effort given to the review of our paper. Your comments have helped us strengthen our manuscript from several points. We have carefully addressed your comments one by one. Please refer to the response document for details. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The paper requires a revision for grammar.
2. In the introduction, page 1, lines 30 to 33, the authors stated that "Numerous scholars have studied the stability of slopes, such as Fan [2] and Gao, et al. [3] who used rigid body limit equilibrium for three-dimensional soil slope stability studies; Zhao, et al. [4], Zhang [5], Guo, et al. [6], and Lin, et al. [7] conducted slope stability analysis based on the finite element method". What is the scientific message that the results of these scholars addressed and what do they show? The discussions of the obtained results are not highlighted or their relation to the present work. The same can be noted between lines 33 and 37.
3. Originality/novelty of the study proposed. This issue is very important and should be better clarified and well highlighted in the both abstract and introduction.
4. Please improve the introduction. Clearly state the problem being investigated. Summarize the relevant research, and explain other authors' findings—more details from literature and investigations regards the subject of the study need to be added to the introduction section.
5. I appreciate the great scientific effort of the Chinese scholars, and I appreciate the citation to their research within the current article. In the list of references, the authors cited many references "in Chinese" (nearly 60% of the references) and while I appreciate this, I suggest including more studies and research "in English".
6. The last paragraph on page 2 (lines 90 to 98), and the second paragraph on page 3 (lines 103 to 110) should be supported with references.
7. The properties of the block soil layer and fractured rock are not specified.
8. The input paramours of the finite element analysis model are not feasible to study the required goals.
9. The finite element analysis is not well described, and the software used in the analysis is not presented.
10. The result of finite element analysis cannot be considered without conducting a verification. The authors should demonstrate the acceptability of the element analysis output results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your time and effort given to the review of our paper. Your comments have helped us strengthen our manuscript from several points. We have carefully addressed your comments one by one. Please refer to the response document for details. Thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
accept
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
replies to previous comments accepted!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have responded to my comments and suggestions satisfactorily.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
