Experimental study on granite weathered crust landslides with different residual layer thicknesses under heavy rainfall

Chen, Jingye; Gong, Qinghua; Wang, Jun; Yuan, Shaoxiong

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138

Preprints

08 Jan 2025

| 08 Jan 2025

Experimental study on granite weathered crust landslides with different residual layer thicknesses under heavy rainfall

Jingye Chen, Qinghua Gong, Jun Wang, and Shaoxiong Yuan

Abstract. Granite weathered crust exhibits a dual structure, which affects the pattern of damage on slopes. This study designed three kinds of slope models with residual layer thicknesses against the background of a landslide cluster in Mibei Village, Longchuan County, Guangdong Province. The hydrological response and deformation damage characteristics of granite weathered crust slopes under heavy rainfall conditions were analyzed and the disaster-causing mechanism of landslides was studied through physical model tests. The results show that the three types of slopes exhibit distinct disaster mechanisms. For the slope with a residual layer of 10 cm thickness, rainfall rapidly infiltrates the soil-rock interface, resulting in the formation of a temporary water table at the interface. The residual layer is rapidly saturated and is susceptible to overall flow-slip damage under seepage, with no obvious sliding surface. For the slope with a residual layer of 20 cm thickness, it takes a long time for rainfall to penetrate into the soil-rock interface. Rainwater gathered at the interface significantly reduces the shear strength of the residual soil. Slope tends to slide along the soil-rock interface at the slope toe under the traction and drag of water flow, which can result in sudden slide. For the slope with a residual layer of 10 cm thickness, no evidence of strong seepage is observed within the slope. The slope gradually slides along the wetting front under hydrostatic pressure and self-sliding force, with the circular arc sliding surface.

Received: 10 Jul 2024 – Discussion started: 08 Jan 2025

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Jingye Chen, Qinghua Gong, Jun Wang, and Shaoxiong Yuan

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Huali Pan, 24 Jan 2025

This paper studied hydrological response and deformation damage characteristics of granite weathered crust slopes under different layer thickness through physical model tests. The result is of a great significance to understand the influence of granite weathered residual layer thickness on formation mechanism of slope failure. The paper can be accepted after major revision.
(1) The abstract needs to be re-edited, and it is recommended to further highlight the innovation and research significance of the paper, especially the innovation of the paper.
(2) This paper studies the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the disaster mechanism. However, it is regrettable that the introduction part of the paper does not describe the research situation and progress of the thickness of granite residual soil. The introduction part seems to be pieced together. The author must rewrite the introduction to point out the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the mechanism of landslides directly, and then put forward the current research shortcomings.
(3) The thickness of granite residual soil in the study area is between 1.00m and 10.40 m. The sliding surface depth ranges from 1.5 to 4.3 m. So which is corresponding thickness of the geometrically similar thickness of the experimental part (E1-10 cm, E2-20cm, E3-30cm)? The study also did not provide the basis for thickness design of E1, E2, and E3? Why 10cm, 20cm and 30cm? Please provide the basis for thickness of the test, as well as the field investigation result of layer thickness of granite residual soil.
(4) In material selection part, please provide the initial parameters of the test, such as particle gradation and initial mass moisture content.
(5)Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 can not seen the final form of destruction. They are all damaged from the slope angle, so how can the three failure modes be analyzed, and the difference between the failure cannot be seen in Figures 8 and 10? In the failure of all soil landslides, the soil layer is different, and similar results will necessarily occur. Therefore, the author must re-add the key evidence of the failure mode and provide the more detailed test result of slope failure.
(6) The field survey images in Figures 12, 13, and 14 also do not provide key evidence for the failure patterns defined as E1, E2, and E3? For example, why Fugure 12 (a) is flow-slip damage model (E1)?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Shun Yang, 17 Apr 2025

Comments as follows:
This paper conducts research on the deformation damage characteristics of granite weathered crust slopes under heavy rainfall conditions. It has certain advantages in research background, experimental design and the results, but there are still deficiencies. The main revision suggestions are as follows:
The innovation points of the paper are not very clear.
The introduction part does not describe the research status and progress of the thickness of granite residual soil. The author need to rewrite the introduction, closely follow the research topic of this paper, directly point out the current relevant research status on the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the landslide mechanism, and then put forward the deficiencies of the current research and the innovation points of this paper.
In the model experiment design part, the basis for the selection of residual soil layer thickness is not sufficient. Only three thicknesses of 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm are set, which may not accurately reflect the difference in slope failure modes under different thicknesses. Moreover, the continuous change of residual soil layer thickness in practice is not considered. The author needs to further explain the basis of the experimental design.
What are the initial conditions of the experiment? What is the basis for the failure modes in Figures 5, 6, and 7? Since the photos of the test process and the final failure photos are not provided, it is recommended that the author supplement the relevant test process data.
The paper has studied the response and failure mechanism of slopes with different thicknesses of residual layers under rainfall, but the discussion on the influencing factors of granite weathering crust landslides is not comprehensive and in-depth enough (Figure 11). For example, factors such as vegetation coverage and changes in soil particle gradation have not been fully considered, which limits the universality of the research results. It is recommended that in the discussion part of the paper, according to the complex geological conditions and special disaster phenomena of the study area, the influence of thickness on the formation mechanism of granite residual soil should be further and deeply discussed.
The statistical analysis methods of some data are relatively simple and may not be able to fully explore the information behind the data. For example, for data such as water content and pore water pressure (Figure 8, 10), only trend analysis is carried out, and no more in-depth statistical methods are used to explore their correlation and change laws. In the discussion of results, the comparative analysis with previous research results is not comprehensive and systematic enough, and the innovation and limitations of this study cannot be fully highlighted.
Some of the figures in the paper have insufficient clarity (Figure 12, 13 and 14), which affects the intuitive presentation and understanding of the experimental results. For example, in some pictures of landslide processes, the details are not clear enough, making it difficult to accurately judge the specific characteristics of landslides. It is recommended that the author supplement them.
The paper can be accepted after carful revision.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-CC1
- AC6: 'Reply on CC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Shun Yang.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract and introduction have been re-edited, and highlight the innovation of the paper. Please read line 11-21, line 57-63.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test materials. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply to comment 5. In the discussion section, based on the experimental results and the nature of granite residual soil, the deformation and damage process of three types of landslides are summarized. Please read line 348-421.
  Reply to comment 6. The rainfall infiltration process was first described based on the water content response. Please read line 247-271. The cause of the formation of rainfall infiltration patterns are then analyzed in depth. Please read line 272-293. The reasons for the formation of pressure responses were analyzed, and the relationship between pressure changes and deformation damage is explored. Please read line 300-336.
  Reply to comment 7. More detailed pictures of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result pictures. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC6
EC1:
'Editors comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Tom Coulthard, 14 May 2025

Authors, please note that the comment "CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Shun Yang, 17 Apr 2025" is a review - that has been erroneously posted as a comment. I am happy to close the discussion now and can you respond to both the review and the comment, treating the comment as if it were a review.
Thank you,
Tom Coulthard

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-EC1
- AC7:
  'Reply on EC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  Dear Tom Coulthard,
  We have responded to all comments and can submit revised manuscripts. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
  Best wishes,
  Jingye Chen
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC7
  - AC8: 'Reply on AC7', Jingye Chen, 19 Jun 2025
    
    Dear Tom Coulthard,
    Thank you for your email. The possible grammatical errors have been corrected in the full text. At the same time, the paper format has been modified to meet the requirements of the journal. Please read the latest manuscript for details.
    On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
    
    Best wishes,
    
    Jingye Chen
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC8

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Huali Pan, 24 Jan 2025

This paper studied hydrological response and deformation damage characteristics of granite weathered crust slopes under different layer thickness through physical model tests. The result is of a great significance to understand the influence of granite weathered residual layer thickness on formation mechanism of slope failure. The paper can be accepted after major revision.
(1) The abstract needs to be re-edited, and it is recommended to further highlight the innovation and research significance of the paper, especially the innovation of the paper.
(2) This paper studies the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the disaster mechanism. However, it is regrettable that the introduction part of the paper does not describe the research situation and progress of the thickness of granite residual soil. The introduction part seems to be pieced together. The author must rewrite the introduction to point out the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the mechanism of landslides directly, and then put forward the current research shortcomings.
(3) The thickness of granite residual soil in the study area is between 1.00m and 10.40 m. The sliding surface depth ranges from 1.5 to 4.3 m. So which is corresponding thickness of the geometrically similar thickness of the experimental part (E1-10 cm, E2-20cm, E3-30cm)? The study also did not provide the basis for thickness design of E1, E2, and E3? Why 10cm, 20cm and 30cm? Please provide the basis for thickness of the test, as well as the field investigation result of layer thickness of granite residual soil.
(4) In material selection part, please provide the initial parameters of the test, such as particle gradation and initial mass moisture content.
(5)Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 can not seen the final form of destruction. They are all damaged from the slope angle, so how can the three failure modes be analyzed, and the difference between the failure cannot be seen in Figures 8 and 10? In the failure of all soil landslides, the soil layer is different, and similar results will necessarily occur. Therefore, the author must re-add the key evidence of the failure mode and provide the more detailed test result of slope failure.
(6) The field survey images in Figures 12, 13, and 14 also do not provide key evidence for the failure patterns defined as E1, E2, and E3? For example, why Fugure 12 (a) is flow-slip damage model (E1)?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC1
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Huali Pan.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract has been re-edited, and highlight the innovative aspects of the paper. Please read line 11-21.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test material.
  Reply to comment 5. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply too comment 6. More detailed maps of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result maps. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC3
CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Shun Yang, 17 Apr 2025

Comments as follows:
This paper conducts research on the deformation damage characteristics of granite weathered crust slopes under heavy rainfall conditions. It has certain advantages in research background, experimental design and the results, but there are still deficiencies. The main revision suggestions are as follows:
The innovation points of the paper are not very clear.
The introduction part does not describe the research status and progress of the thickness of granite residual soil. The author need to rewrite the introduction, closely follow the research topic of this paper, directly point out the current relevant research status on the influence of the thickness of granite residual soil on the landslide mechanism, and then put forward the deficiencies of the current research and the innovation points of this paper.
In the model experiment design part, the basis for the selection of residual soil layer thickness is not sufficient. Only three thicknesses of 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm are set, which may not accurately reflect the difference in slope failure modes under different thicknesses. Moreover, the continuous change of residual soil layer thickness in practice is not considered. The author needs to further explain the basis of the experimental design.
What are the initial conditions of the experiment? What is the basis for the failure modes in Figures 5, 6, and 7? Since the photos of the test process and the final failure photos are not provided, it is recommended that the author supplement the relevant test process data.
The paper has studied the response and failure mechanism of slopes with different thicknesses of residual layers under rainfall, but the discussion on the influencing factors of granite weathering crust landslides is not comprehensive and in-depth enough (Figure 11). For example, factors such as vegetation coverage and changes in soil particle gradation have not been fully considered, which limits the universality of the research results. It is recommended that in the discussion part of the paper, according to the complex geological conditions and special disaster phenomena of the study area, the influence of thickness on the formation mechanism of granite residual soil should be further and deeply discussed.
The statistical analysis methods of some data are relatively simple and may not be able to fully explore the information behind the data. For example, for data such as water content and pore water pressure (Figure 8, 10), only trend analysis is carried out, and no more in-depth statistical methods are used to explore their correlation and change laws. In the discussion of results, the comparative analysis with previous research results is not comprehensive and systematic enough, and the innovation and limitations of this study cannot be fully highlighted.
Some of the figures in the paper have insufficient clarity (Figure 12, 13 and 14), which affects the intuitive presentation and understanding of the experimental results. For example, in some pictures of landslide processes, the details are not clear enough, making it difficult to accurately judge the specific characteristics of landslides. It is recommended that the author supplement them.
The paper can be accepted after carful revision.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-CC1
- AC6: 'Reply on CC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  On behalf of all the authors, I would like to respond to each of the review comments proposed by Shun Yang.
  Reply to comment 1. The abstract and introduction have been re-edited, and highlight the innovation of the paper. Please read line 11-21, line 57-63.
  Reply to comment 2. The introduction has been re-edited. The introduction describes the importance of material variability for the study of single landslide. Granite weathered crust slopes are composed of two layers of material. The study of the effect of material variability on the stability of single granite weathered crust slope is still lacking. Please read line 36-59.
  Reply to comment 3. Based on the results of the field survey of granite residual soil thicknesses, a basis for the design of test thicknesses was provided. Please read line 128-133 and see Table 2.
  Reply to comment 4. Please see Table 1 for the initial parameters of the test materials. Detailed slope failure test procedure is provided. Please see Figure 5，6 and 7, and read line 182-206. Combined image analysis and sensor data analysis add key evidence of damage patterns. Please read line 300-333.
  Reply to comment 5. In the discussion section, based on the experimental results and the nature of granite residual soil, the deformation and damage process of three types of landslides are summarized. Please read line 348-421.
  Reply to comment 6. The rainfall infiltration process was first described based on the water content response. Please read line 247-271. The cause of the formation of rainfall infiltration patterns are then analyzed in depth. Please read line 272-293. The reasons for the formation of pressure responses were analyzed, and the relationship between pressure changes and deformation damage is explored. Please read line 300-336.
  Reply to comment 7. More detailed pictures of the site investigation were provided. The reliability of the test was verified by comparing the site survey maps with the test result pictures. Please read line 429-235 and see Figure 15.
  Finally, on behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC6
EC1:
'Editors comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Tom Coulthard, 14 May 2025

Authors, please note that the comment "CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Shun Yang, 17 Apr 2025" is a review - that has been erroneously posted as a comment. I am happy to close the discussion now and can you respond to both the review and the comment, treating the comment as if it were a review.
Thank you,
Tom Coulthard

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-EC1
- AC7:
  'Reply on EC1', Jingye Chen, 11 Jun 2025
  
  Dear Tom Coulthard,
  We have responded to all comments and can submit revised manuscripts. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
  Best wishes,
  Jingye Chen
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC7
  - AC8: 'Reply on AC7', Jingye Chen, 19 Jun 2025
    
    Dear Tom Coulthard,
    Thank you for your email. The possible grammatical errors have been corrected in the full text. At the same time, the paper format has been modified to meet the requirements of the journal. Please read the latest manuscript for details.
    On behalf of all the authors, I would like to thank the reviewers and editorial staff. The article has benefited greatly from your work and professionalism.
    
    Best wishes,
    
    Jingye Chen
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2138-AC8

Jingye Chen, Qinghua Gong, Jun Wang, and Shaoxiong Yuan

Viewed

Total article views: 452 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
316	103	33	452	13	34

HTML: 316
PDF: 103
XML: 33
Total: 452
BibTeX: 13
EndNote: 34

Views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	73	19	7	99
Feb 2025	21	10	2	33
Mar 2025	15	3	0	18
Apr 2025	30	14	3	47
May 2025	23	5	5	33
Jun 2025	49	22	15	86
Jul 2025	19	13	1	33
Aug 2025	79	17	0	96
Sep 2025	7	0	7

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 08 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	73	19	7	99
Feb 2025	21	10	2	33
Mar 2025	15	3	0	18
Apr 2025	30	14	3	47
May 2025	23	5	5	33
Jun 2025	49	22	15	86
Jul 2025	19	13	1	33
Aug 2025	79	17	0	96
Sep 2025	7	0	7

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 438 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 438 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 03 Sep 2025

Short summary

Rainfall caused mass landslides disaster in Mibei Village. Different types of landslides occurred in similar geologic settings, which triggered us to make the assumption that the residual layer thickness affects the landslide damage pattern. Therefore, we designed three slope models with different residual layer thicknesses for tests. The landslide damage patterns were summarized. The E1 slope is overall flow-slip damage; the E2 slope is traction sliding; the E3 slope is thrust-type slide.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0