Application of the Multi-Criteria Optimization Method to Repair Landslides with Additional Soil Collapse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is impressive and well written. It introduces several locations and case study. The optimization methods seem well used.

I have some minor comments, please modify the paper along these points:

• From Figure 16 to Figure 21 - I see non-English characters in names. Please change it to readable in English language.
• There are several equations, which have same meaning on left side, such as n(B)reg from (16) to (18), ΔV_Reg from (19) to (24). Please distinguish these elements, e.g. n(B)reg1, n(B)reg2, etc.
• The title of Figure 25 went the to top of page
• Please use some literatures from the last 3years showing the actual state.
• If the title of literature is non-English, e.g. second literature, please translate it and sign in brackets after non-English title.

 

Author Response

         We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments that increased the quality of the manuscript.

Point1: From Figure 16 to Figure 21 - I see non-English characters in names. Please change it to readable in English language.

Response1: all Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected.

Point2: There are several equations, which have same meaning on left side, such as n(B)reg from (16) to (18), ΔV_Reg from (19) to (24). Please distinguish these elements, e.g. n(B)reg1, n(B)reg2, etc.

Response2: all the elements has been distinguished, and marked as per your suggestions

Point3: The title of Figure 25 went the to top of page.

Response3: Title of Figure 25 was returned to its place below the figure, on the same page.

Point4: Please use some literatures from the last 3years showing the actual state.

Response4: new literature has been added from number 39 to number 45.

Point5: If the title of literature is non-English, e.g. second literature, please translate it and sign in brackets after non-English title.

Response5: titles of all non-English literature have been translated and added as per your suggestion

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper investigated the multi-criteria optimization of landslide remediation and determination of the optional number of walls in the additional soil erosion. Number of references 39, which is enough and advisable.
The paper is understandable, well-structured and sufficiently detailed. However, some correction would improve the quality of paper:

- Please, depict aim and structure of paper at the end of section Introduction (e.g.: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows: …”).

- Please, “put into English” equations – see equation (2).

- Please, use bigger (same as text) letters in figures.

The sources of figures should be notified. Figures 9 – 15 are unreadable

- I suggest use bigger photos in figures (eg. Figure 2.).

- Please, rewrite equation (5). this form is not unequivocal.

- Errata "Pajčina krivina" should be corrected – last row of page 10.

- Do not use “(3.2) form – row 387 –, because this means equation, not subchapter.

- Coloring of figures should be corrected, because in case of black and white printing of paper figures become unreadable and not understandable.

-  I suggest use organically “C3” and “S5” form to refer Criterions and Scenarios.

- Equations (16) – (24) are incorrect from dimensional point of view! Please, rewrite them!

 

Author Response

         We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments that increased the quality of the manuscript.

Point 1: Please, depict aim and structure of paper at the end of section Introduction (e.g.: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows: …”).

Response1: The main goal of this paper is to consider the examples of landslides from practice, studying the parameters expressed by the ratio of the number of wells n(B), the amount of drilling H, the length of landslides (along the road) L, the area of landslides A and increase the amount of material ΔV according to the amount of material of the project solution for landslide remediation Vp, determine the required number n(B) and the amount of drilling H per landslide, in accordance with regulations, while respecting the requirements of investors relating to reducing the amount of exploration work..

Point 2: Please, “put into English” equations – see equation (2).

Response2: all Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected

Point 3: Please, use bigger (same as text) letters in figures.

Response3: all text in Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected and all the text that could be harmonized is harmonized, there are a couple of figures for which the software was used to make them and it does not allow us to change its size and style.

Point 4: The sources of figures should be notified. Figures 9 – 15 are unreadable

Response4: For those figures was used software to make them and it does not allow us to change its size and style, but we did our best to clean and enlarge it at least a little

Point 5: I suggest use bigger photos in figures (eg. Figure 2.).

Response5: given the margins and the way the text and figures are arranged in the paper (according to the magazine's template), they have been increased to their maximum, which is allowed and which does not disturb the style of the magazine

Point 6: Please, rewrite equation (5). this form is not unequivocal.

Response6: there was an error in writing, it should have been Ф⁺ and Ф^-, the formula has been corrected now

Point 7:  Errata "Pajčina krivina" should be corrected – last row of page 10.

Response7: the error has been corrected on last row of page 10, "Pajčina krivina"

Point 8:  Do not use “(3.2) form – row 387 –, because this means equation, not subchapter.

Response8: 3.2 refers to the subchapter “Application of PROMETHEE method - optimization of the number of wells in additional soil erosion”

Point 9:  Coloring of figures should be corrected, because in case of black and white printing of paper figures become unreadable and not understandable.

Response9: the color on all the figures is harmonized, on some of them the hatching has been added, in order to be as readable and clear as possible, even in black and white printing

Point 10:  I suggest use organically “C3” and “S5” form to refer Criterions and Scenarios.

Response10:  It has now been corrected, and the organic "C3" and "S5" forms point to criteria and scenarios.

Point 11:  Equations (16) – (24) are incorrect from dimensional point of view! Please, rewrite them!

Response11: all Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected, all the elements has been distinguished, and marked as per your suggestions

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors investigate a problem of " Title: APPLICATION OF THE MULTI-CRITERIA OPTIMIZATION METHOD TO REPAIR LANDSLIDE IN ADDITIONAL SOIL COLLAPSE ".

The work is aimed at illustrating the Final Design Solution, which implies the choice of the optimal remediation method with an appropriate safety factor. This takes into account the engineering (rehabilitation technology - change of the geometry of the section, the system of drains, different types of support structures, application of deep foundation (piles) in combination with other geotechnical structures, application of coatings, application geosynthetics, geo and geochemicals, injection of masses of soil, application of electro osmosis, etc.) and economic (work premise and calculation) aspects of rehabilitation.

As a mathematical support, the authors use multi-criteria optimization methods (MCDM - Multi-Criteria Decision Making). For the purposes of this research, PROMETHEE method has been selected.    

Comments on the text. In my opinion, Table 1 does not have a function sign "f", i.e. it should look like f₁(a₁), f₂(a₁), ..., f_j(a₁), …, etc. In formula (5), the first value Φ^-(a) must be represented as Φ⁺(a).

Let's pass to mathematics.

See section 3.2. "Application of the PROMETHEE method..." the authors indicate 7 activities (I would call them 7 "technologies" of applied landslide remediation with additional soil erosion) that are investigated during optimization.

When forming a model (task), the authors confuse the concepts of "parameters" and "criteria".

If an economic or engineering indicator is used with a target orientation, using a minimization or maximization sign, then such an indicator is a criterion (In the problem, this is  S₁, …,  S₇) - (Generally accepted designations "f"). The indicators on which the criteria depend are the parameters (In the problem it is c₁… c₃) - (Generally accepted designations of the parameters "x" - in the end f(x)).

Using these designations, the authors constructed a problem:

  π(a,b)=åw_jP_j (a,b)             (3)

Where it is å  w_j = 1          (4)

The numerical values of task (3) to (4) are presented in Table 2, and the weights are presented in Table 3. Let's analyze the first set of weighting coefficients: 1 0 0. Then the problem (3) - (4) becomes a single-criteria problem with the first criterion.

Let's analyze the second set of weighting coefficients: 0 0.5 0.5. Then the problem (3) -(4) becomes a single-criterion problem with the criterion  π(a,b)=0+0.5P₂+ 0.5P₃ =0.5(P₂+P₃). What does  P₂+P₃  mean, the authors will not answer, since this value makes no sense - neither economic nor engineering.

Therefore, all further arithmetic actions will lead to the answer that the authors need.

Thus, in general, the review of the article is negative.

Recommendations.

At the same time, I believe that the article should be printed in your journal (together with the review).

The volume of work shows that the authors worked on the article. In science (and mathematics especially), a negative result is also a result. It is quite possible that I did not see something that will interest readers.

Therefore, I recommend the work to be published together with the review.

 

 

Author Response

           We thank the reviewer for the great feedback and are grateful for the reviewer's comments that increased the quality of the manuscript.

The work is aimed at illustrating the Final Design Solution, which implies the choice of the optimal remediation method with an appropriate safety factor. This takes into account the engineering (rehabilitation technology - change of the geometry of the section, the system of drains, different types of support structures, application of deep foundation (piles) in combination with other geotechnical structures, application of coatings, application geosynthetics, geo and geochemicals, injection of masses of soil, application of electro osmosis, etc.) and economic (work premise and calculation) aspects of rehabilitation.

As a mathematical support, the authors use multi-criteria optimization methods (MCDM - Multi-Criteria Decision Making). For the purposes of this research, PROMETHEE method has been selected.    

Point 1:  Comments on the text. In my opinion, Table 1 does not have a function sign "f", i.e. it should look like f₁(a₁), f₂(a₁), ..., f_j(a₁), …, etc. In formula (5), the first value Φ^-(a) must be represented as Φ⁺(a).

Response 1: all the shortcomings in the tables have been corrected, according to your suggestion. All formulas have been tested, and all shortcomings removed, at your suggestion.

Point 2:  See section 3.2. "Application of the PROMETHEE method..." the authors indicate 7 activities (I would call them 7 "technologies" of applied landslide remediation with additional soil erosion) that are investigated during optimization.

Response 2: it has been corrected, and is now called "7 cases from practice"

Point 3:  When forming a model (task), the authors confuse the concepts of "parameters" and "criteria".

If an economic or engineering indicator is used with a target orientation, using a minimization or maximization sign, then such an indicator is a criterion (In the problem, this is  S₁, …,  S₇) - (Generally accepted designations "f"). The indicators on which the criteria depend are the parameters (In the problem it is c₁… c₃) - (Generally accepted designations of the parameters "x" - in the end f(x)).

Response 3: This contradicts the recommendation of another reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Replays to authors’ responses:

Point 1: Please, depict aim and structure of paper at the end of section Introduction (e.g.: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows: …”).

Response1: The main goal of this paper is to consider the examples of landslides from practice, studying the parameters expressed by the ratio of the number of wells n(B), the amount of drilling H, the length of landslides (along the road) L, the area of landslides A and increase the amount of material ΔV according to the amount of material of the project solution for landslide remediation Vp, determine the required number n(B) and the amount of drilling H per landslide, in accordance with regulations, while respecting the requirements of investors relating to reducing the amount of exploration work

This response is FASLE!
I did not find the text mentioned above in the “corrected” version  of paper.
I did not find structure of paper too. For example: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows:  Section 2 shows methods of multi-criteria optimization methods. Section 3 depicts …”


Point 8:  Do not use “(3.2) form – row 387 –, because this means equation, not subchapter.

Response8: 3.2 refers to the subchapter “Application of PROMETHEE method - optimization of the number of wells in additional soil erosion”

This response is FASLE!
In scientific publications using brackets means EQUATION, not subchapter. Please, use different form to refer the 3.2 subchapter. For example: “The subchapter 3.2. presents the results …”


Point 11:  Equations (16) – (24) are incorrect from dimensional point of view! Please, rewrite them!

Response11: all Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected, all the elements has been distinguished, and marked as per your suggestions

This response is FASLE!
If either one or both sides of a theoretically derived equation has/have more than 1 member (joined by addition or subtraction), then all of these members must have identical dimensions. For example: in equation (17) you used surface of the landslide A as independent variable, its dimension (unit) is hectare.
The variables with units hectare (-0.48A), hectare-square (0.56A²) and hectare-cube (0.053A³) cannot be added!!!
Please, use dimensional constants for dimensional homogeneities of equations (16) – (24)!
(Recommended literature: Thomas Szirtes, Applied Dimensional Analysis and Modeling, ISBN: 978-0123706201)

Author Response

Point 1: Please, depict aim and structure of paper at the end of section Introduction (e.g.: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows: …”).

Response1: The main goal of this paper is to consider the examples of landslides from practice, studying the parameters expressed by the ratio of the number of wells n(B), the amount of drilling H, the length of landslides (along the road) L, the area of landslides A and increase the amount of material ΔV according to the amount of material of the project solution for landslide remediation Vp, determine the required number n(B) and the amount of drilling H per landslide, in accordance with regulations, while respecting the requirements of investors relating to reducing the amount of exploration work

This response is FASLE!
I did not find the text mentioned above in the “corrected” version  of paper.
I did not find structure of paper too. For example: “The rest of the paper is organized as follows:  Section 2 shows methods of multi-criteria optimization methods. Section 3 depicts …”

RESPONSE: The article is organized as follows: The main goal of this paper is to determine the required number of exploratory wells for additional landslides for different types of landslides and methods used for their remediation, using the method of multicriteria optimization (PROMETHEE), taking into account the effects of increasing workloads that can greatly affect total costs of landslide remediation and which may lead to exceeding the planned budget.

In the following paper, Chapter 2 points out the importance of applying multicriteria optimization methods in solving landslide remediation problems and lists the most commonly used methods. For the purposes of research in this paper, the PROMETHEE method was chosen and the theoretical foundations on which it is based are presented.

In Chapter 3 - case studies, on the examples of seven landslides located in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, it is presented, in order to consider a wide range of effects of multicriteria optimization of the application of the PROMETHEE method. Activities, criteria and appropriate weighting coefficients are defined. For the given scenarios (selected preferences) and based on the ranking of the flow function, the function of the number of wells was optimized during additional soil subsidence. The obtained results are presented and a comment is given on the obtained ranking results.

Sensitivity analysis of the obtained results was performed. For sensitivity analysis, in addition to the given criteria, data were used to increase the amount of material ΔV of the performed state of landslide remediation V_i according to the amount of material of the project solution of landslide remediation

In Chapter 4, the corresponding conclusions are derived from the multicriteria method of optimization of the given problem presented in the previous chapter.

Chapter 5 describes the contribution of work to science.

 

Point 8:  Do not use “(3.2) form – row 387 –, because this means equation, not subchapter.

Response8: 3.2 refers to the subchapter “Application of PROMETHEE method - optimization of the number of wells in additional soil erosion”

This response is FASLE!
In scientific publications using brackets means EQUATION, not subchapter. Please, use different form to refer the 3.2 subchapter. For example: “The subchapter 3.2. presents the results …”

RESPONSE: Now is corected as "3.2."

 

Point 11:  Equations (16) – (24) are incorrect from dimensional point of view! Please, rewrite them!

Response11: all Figures, equations and formulas are reviewed, and all names that have not been translated into English have been corrected, all the elements has been distinguished, and marked as per your suggestions

This response is FASLE!
If either one or both sides of a theoretically derived equation has/have more than 1 member (joined by addition or subtraction), then all of these members must have identical dimensions. For example: in equation (17) you used surface of the landslide A as independent variable, its dimension (unit) is hectare.
The variables with units hectare (-0.48A), hectare-square (0.56A2) and hectare-cube (0.053A3) cannot be added!!!
Please, use dimensional constants for dimensional homogeneities of equations (16) – (24)!
(Recommended literature: Thomas Szirtes, Applied Dimensional Analysis and Modeling, ISBN: 978-0123706201)

 

RESPONSE: In chapter „3.3. Sensitivity analysis“ insted of „for the surface of the landslide ha (hectare)“ is now changed to „for the surface of the landslide ha (10000 square meters = 10⁴ m²)“ we are hoping that this correction applies to your objection.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest to accept the paper