A 3D Model Applied to Analyze the Mechanical Characteristic of Living Stump Slope with Different Tap Root Lengths
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Specific comments:
1. Labels--(a) and (b) missing on Figure 5 on page 6
2. On Figure 5(a), for ease of reading, H (slope height), B (slope width) and L (model length) may be shown on the figure
3. Figure 7 legend label difficult to read
4. Wondering how the potential sliding surface depths are obtained from Figure 7 since units are not shown in the figure axes and color simply denotes strain level (203-206)
5. Maximum tensile stress for the second row tap root appears to be around 2.85 m, not 2.55 m as mentioned (220)
6. No mention or description about Figure 9 in the text
7. …living stump in the middle row,………….: (242): to me this appears to be living stump in the middle column
8. Again, here it is not clear how the buried depths are estimated for the maximum positive or negative bending moment of the tap root. Also it may be advisable to reflect the Figures 11(a,b,c,d,e,f) in the text wherever appropriate. The quality of legend text labels on the Figure 11 should be improved. (Page 9)
9. In Figure 12 (page 10), legend labels difficult to read and therefore need to enhance the text quality; here again it is difficult to understand how the positive bending moment of 19.5 kN.m and 6.9 kN.m for lateral root no.2 and no.1, respectively were determined. Advisable to reflect the Figures 9 (a,b,c,d) in the text.
10. Figure 13: suggested to reflect Figure 13 (a, b, c, d) in text wherever appropriate ;
11. In addition, the arrangement distance of the root system on the slope, the incidence angle of the tap roots and the lateral roots, etc., all of which have an impact on the slope stability (Li, 2016; Ma et al., 2019). (298-300)
----Is the above findings consistent with or validated by the present study? It would be good to make some statement on this aspect; otherwise just citing previous studies without any relevance to the present study doesn’t appear to serve much purpose, at least in the discussion section.
12. It can be seen from Fig. 14a that the shear stress of the toe section of the unrooted slope is mainly concentrated at 2-3m below the slope, while the shear stress of the 3m tap roots slope is concentrated at the deeper soil layer (about 3-5m)……..(308-310)
--------I wonder how the above depths below the slope is estimated because it is not possible to determine from Figure 14 or 15; also please mention the Figures (Fig14 (a), or Fig15(a), etc) in the text wherever appropriate.
General comments:
The manuscript is well structured with clear statement of the research objectives and existing technological know-how, gaps and challenges. There are some issues associated with grammatical and sentence structure; however, I understand this will be looked into if the paper is accepted for publication. The materials used in the in the study appears to be appropriate and the methodologies adopted such as FEM, embedded beam elements, etc are relevant for the present study and well established ones. The results obtained appears to address the proposed hypothesis. The limitations thereof in the current study are clearly outlined and the authors proposed the need to conduct further experiments/studies to improve the present models for practical application.
One comment is related to deep landslides and proposed measures to stabilize slope using elm tree. In general, deep seated landslide constitutes landslide with depths ranging from 10 feet to several hundreds of feet, well beyond reach of most tree roots. This means for effective slope protection of deep landslides, the roots of tree should penetrate beyond 10 feet. However, based on what I understand elm tree roots appears to be around 3-4 feet in length and therefore, in practice I am not sure about the effectiveness of elm tree root to provide countermeasures for slope stabilization.
Overall, after addressing the comments proposed here and brushing the language, the manuscript is good to be accepted for publication and I wish the authors all the best.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Labels--(a) and (b) missing on Figure 5 on page 6
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. Labels--(a) and (b) has been added on Figure 5.
- On Figure 5(a), for ease of reading, H (slope height), B (slope width) and L (model length) may be shown on the figure
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's reminding. H (slope height), B (slope width) and L (model length) have been shown on the Figure 5.
- Figure 7 legend label difficult to read.
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. Figure 7 legend label has been modified.
- Wondering how the potential sliding surface depths are obtained from Figure 7 since units are not shown in the figure axes and color simply denotes strain level (203-206)
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. The sliding surface depth was measured by Midas. The red area (high strain level) in Figure 7 represents the potential sliding surface.(205-206)
- Maximum tensile stress for the second row tap root appears to be around 2.85 m, not 2.55 m as mentioned (220)
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. Because of my negligence, the maximum tensile stress for the second row tap root is around 2.85 m.(239)
- No mention or description about Figure 9 in the text.
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. The description about Figure 9 has been added in the text.(239-242)
- …living stump in the middlerow,………….: (242): to me this appears to be living stump in the middle column
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. The word "row"has been modified to "column". (264)
- Again, here it is not clear how the buried depths are estimated for the maximum positive or negative bending moment of the tap root. Also it may be advisable to reflect the Figures 11(a,b,c,d,e,f) in the text wherever appropriate. The quality of legend text labels on the Figure 11 should be improved. (Page 9)
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. The buried depths for the maximum bending moment can be estimated by measurement tools in Midas. (265-266) The quality of legend text labels on the Figure 11 has been improved.
- In Figure 12 (page 10), legend labels difficult to read and therefore need to enhance the text quality; here again it is difficult to understand how the positive bending moment of 19.5 kN.m and 6.9 kN.m for lateral root no.2 and no.1, respectively were determined. Advisable to reflect the Figures 9 (a,b,c,d) in the text.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. In Figure 12, legend labels has been improved. The No. 2 lateral root that grows laterally has the largest positive bending moment at its connection with the tap root, which is 20.0 kN·m not 19.5 kN.m. The No. 1 lateral root has the smallest positive bending moment at its connection with the tap root, which is 7.0 kN·m not 6.9 kN.m. The lower surface of the No. 1 and No. 2 lateral roots is tensioned.
- Figure 13: suggested to reflect Figure 13 (a, b, c, d) in text wherever appropriate ;
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. Figure 13 has been reflected in the text.(313,316)
- In addition, the arrangement distance of the root system on the slope, the incidence angle of the tap roots and the lateral roots, etc., all of which have an impact on the slope stability (Li, 2016; Ma et al., 2019). (298-300)
----Is the above findings consistent with or validated by the present study? It would be good to make some statement on this aspect; otherwise just citing previous studies without any relevance to the present study doesn’t appear to serve much purpose, at least in the discussion section.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments and guidance. I can't agree with you more. The above findings is partly consistent with the present study.
- It can be seen from Fig. 14a that the shear stress of the toe section of the unrooted slope is mainly concentrated at 2-3m below the slope, while the shear stress of the 3m tap roots slope is concentrated at the deeper soil layer (about 3-5m)……..(308-310)
--------I wonder how the above depths below the slope is estimated because it is not possible to determine from Figure 14 or 15; also please mention the Figures (Fig14 (a), or Fig15(a), etc) in the text wherever appropriate.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. The above depths below the slope is estimated by measurement tools in Midas. Fig 14(a) and Fig 15(a) have been mentioned in the text. (333,336,341)
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for author contribution. According to the article "A 3D Model Applied to Analyze the Mechanical Characteristic of Living Stump Slope with Different Tap Root Lengths ", This topic is interesting and it worthy of publication, however, there are still some issues need be addressed.：
1、The first part of the introduction to effectively reduce the occurrence of shallow landslide technology can be appropriate to add several existing methods introduction.
2、It is suggested that the value obtained from the analysis of the tap roots bending moment characteristics in FIG. 11 should be represented by a data graph.
3、It is suggested in 4.3 to specify why biological characteristics of roots are not considered in this paper.
4、The appropriateness of the word "seems" in article 297 should be considered.
5、The number of references in this paper is small, and it is suggested to increase appropriately.
Author Response
Thank you very much for author contribution. According to the article "A 3D Model Applied to Analyze the Mechanical Characteristic of Living Stump Slope with Different Tap Root Lengths ", This topic is interesting and it worthy of publication, however, there are still some issues need be addressed.：
1、The first part of the introduction to effectively reduce the occurrence of shallow landslide technology can be appropriate to add several existing methods introduction.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments，the existing methods that can effectively reduce the occurrence of shallow landslide has been add in the introduction.(35-36)
2、It is suggested that the value obtained from the analysis of the tap roots bending moment characteristics in FIG. 11 should be represented by a data graph.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments, I think it is more intuitive to use this figure, and the legend has been modified.
3、It is suggested in 4.3 to specify why biological characteristics of roots are not considered in this paper.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. The biological characteristic of roots will have a great impact on the mechanical properties of soil and roots, which is often dynamic and difficult to be simulated and analyzed qualitatively (395-398). Therefore, biological characteristics of roots are not considered in this paper.
4、The appropriateness of the word "seems" in article 297 should be considered.
Answer: Thanks for the meticulous work of the reviewer. The word "seems" has been modified to "are consistent with". (320)
5、The number of references in this paper is small, and it is suggested to increase appropriately.
Answer: Thanks for the reviewer's comments. References have been added. (36-37)
