the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Jan 2025
Experimental study on granite weathered crust landslides with different residual layer thicknesses under heavy rainfall
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.
- Preprint
(2909 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Huali Pan, 24 Jan 2025
reply
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 -
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2138', Shun Yang, 17 Apr 2025
reply
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
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 131 | 46 | 12 | 189 | 8 | 13 |
- HTML: 131
- PDF: 46
- XML: 12
- Total: 189
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1