Study on the Interaction Mechanism between Micropiles and Soil Landslides
, Guochen Sui 1, Guanglu Wang 1, Hui Cheng 3, Xunchang Li 1, Wei Yang 1, Juntao Deng 4 and Farong Zeng 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper outlined the result of the Study on the Interaction Mechanism between Micro Pile and 2 Soil Landslide. It's organized well; however following considerations should be taken into account before further action:
1) All references are older than 2015; the authors are highly encouraged to add the most recent relevant papers, thus the introduction should be revised to reflect this change.
2) While the gravitational distortion model was used, the gravitational acceleration effect should be discussed.
3) The scale size effect is not mentioned. A paragraph should be added to the modelling section describing how the authors matched the micropile model size and material with the relevant site-scale model.
4) Compaction method is not well described. How do the authors check the desired achieved density?
5) I can't see the design parameters calibration by Flac 3D. The authors are not allowed to use the same parameters because it may not fit the stress-strain behaviour of modelled material.
6) All the curves and numbers are too small. Very difficult to chase the values inside the curves.
7) The authors missed the discussion on the results. Highly recommended to add a separate section or paragraph to discuss the results of the tests.
8) English need to be checked by a native technical English speaker.
English need to be checked by a native technical English speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you reviewers for your efforts on our manuscript and for giving us this opportunity to revise it. We once more revised the manuscript according to these comments, and these revisions were marked with blue color. At the same time,the revised sections are marked in red in the article. This time we hope our revisions satisfy with accepted requirements.
The detailed revisions are listed as follows:
Reviewer #1:
The paper outlined the result of the Study on the Interaction Mechanism between Micro Pile and 2 Soil Landslide. It's organized well; however following considerations should be taken into account before further action:
We thank the reviewer for the very high comments on this manuscript and support for publication of the manuscript.
Point 1:All references are older than 2015; the authors are highly encouraged to add the most recent relevant papers, thus the introduction should be revised to reflect this change.
Response 1:According to these suggestions, we made some revisions and add the works in “Introduction” and “References”.
Point 2:While the gravitational distortion model was used, the gravitational acceleration effect should be discussed.
Response 2:The mainstream accepted practical method is to use the centrifugal model approach, and this experiment uses a gravity distortion model to overcome the effect of gravity. Modifications have been made in section 1.1 at the corresponding locations.
Point 3:The scale size effect is not mentioned. A paragraph should be added to the modelling section describing how the authors matched the micropile model size and material with the relevant site-scale model.
Response 3:According to these suggestions, we have added a more detailed paragraph for explanation, which is added in the corresponding place in section 3.1.
Point 4:Compaction method is not well described. How do the authors check the desired achieved density?
Response 4:According to these suggestions, we have further described the compaction method and added a paragraph for explanation.
Point 5:I can't see the design parameters calibration by Flac 3D. The authors are not allowed to use the same parameters because it may not fit the stress-strain behaviour of modelled material.
Response 5:According to these suggestions, we have added a more detailed paragraph for explanation, which is added in the corresponding place in section 3.1.
Point 6: All the curves and numbers are too small. Very difficult to chase the values inside the curves.
Response 6:According to these suggestions, we modified the curves and figures in all the images.
Point 7:The authors missed the discussion on the results. Highly recommended to add a separate section or paragraph to discuss the results of the tests.
Response 7:According to these suggestions, we have added a section for discussion.
Point 8: English need to be checked by a native technical English speaker.
Response 8: According to these suggestions, we rechecked and modified the statements.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Manuscript submitted is well presented scientific work which needs polishing. The contribution to the body of knowledge should be highlighted. Therefore the recommendation is to revise it following the remarks:
- Please put more effort into the description of the 3D model. Was it accurate and how was this accuracy measured. Is it just for this singular study or can be applied for wider range of application. Now in this case it is described as it was the experiment performed and then the model was prepared to fit with these results obtained during the tests. Please explain this.
-Please expand the literature review. It will be easier then to compare the results.
- Be careful with figure placement as in case of figure 7. Stick to the template margin.
- please explain what is in the figure 5. Describe in the picture these elements. And combine with figure 4
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We thank you for your efforts on our manuscript and for giving us this opportunity to revise it. We once more revised the manuscript according to these comments, and these revisions were marked with blue color. At the same time,the revised sections are marked in red in the article. This time we hope our revisions satisfy with accepted requirements.
The detailed revisions are listed as follows:
Reviewer #2:
Point 1:Please put more effort into the description of the 3D model. Was it accurate and how was this accuracy measured. Is it just for this singular study or can be applied for wider range of application. Now in this case it is described as it was the experiment performed and then the model was prepared to fit with these results obtained during the tests. Please explain this.
Response 1:According to these suggestions, we have added a more detailed paragraph for explanation, which is added in the corresponding place in section 3.1.
Point 2:Please expand the literature review. It will be easier then to compare the results
Response 2:According to these suggestions, we revised and expanded the references and revised the statements.
Point 3:Be careful with figure placement as in case of figure 7. Stick to the template margin.
Response 3:According to these suggestions, we modified the position of the figure and pasted the position of Figure 7 on the edge of the template.
Point 4: please explain what is in the figure 5. Describe in the picture these elements. And combine with figure 4
Response 4:According to these suggestions, we interpreted the content of Figure 5, described the picture, and compared it with Figure 4.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks, all comments are responded properly
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript benefits from revision. However still some minor issues can be revised.
Please add scale in the figures. Please emphasize more your findings with the literature
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
