Study on Dynamic Response Characteristics of Stepped Reinforced Retaining Wall
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Pleased introduce the model of geocell in detail.
2. What's the connection type betweent the reinforcement and the panel?
3. The types and values of dampings are not given.
4. Many recent literatures about the dynamic performance of MSE walls are not listed.
Author Response
尊敬的教授：
我们按照您的建议仔细修改了本文。
期待很快收到您的来信。谢谢。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Comments
In order to further explore the reinforcement material laying position influence on the dynamic characteristics of the reinforced retaining wall, based on FLAC3D finite difference methods for solving nonlinear, established with the same size of the retaining wall in practical engineering, the reinforcement material relative position in the retaining wall for the normalized processing, un-der seismic load, the panel under the conditions of different reinforcement arrangement is analyzed and a horizontal displacement of slope, The vertical and horizontal earth pressure behind the wall and the distribution of potential sliding surface were calculated. The relationship between the maximum horizontal displacement of the panel and the laying position of the reinforcement was fitted 17 by Matlab. The followings should be carefully addressed in the revision to be published in Buildings.
Manuscript ID: buildings-1870689
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Study on dynamic response characteristics of stepped reinforced retaining wall
1- The authors should be followed the instruction of the journal in all parts and sections in this manuscript.
2- Complete mathematic calculation model with all nomenclature missing
3- The abstract needs more quantitative results. The abstract section is an important and powerful representation of the research. It is better that the results should be presented with the support of specified data. Please provide your contribution and work novelty.
4- The authors should indicate this technique to enhance system performance. Also, the author should add more references that discuss the effect of using this technique. It is recommended that the authors carry out wide analysis and comparison with the state-of-the-art studies.
5- Most tables and figures are needed improve the quality of all tables and figures.
6- Add references for all equations.
7- I would also expect to validate with two more experimental works available in the literature.
8- The literature review must be improved. Please highlight in the literature review the differences between previous papers and your paper. Please clearly indicate the knowledge gap and prove that it is a really not analyzed area of the field. Please indicate new approach / new methods in a comparison to the existing investigations (literature review should be extended).
9- Description of Earth pressure distribution and Wall top displacement time history analyses should be improved.
10- You need to add error analysis of your results and add the error bars in your graphs to indicate your accuracy measurements.
11- Improve work justification.
12- More quantitative conclusions should be presented. Please prepare additional comparisons, some percentage differences. There is a lack of quantitative conclusions which should contain main findings from the paper and highlight the new and high novelty and contribution of your work to the field.
13- Present the mathematical equation of the boundary conditions and initial condition.
14- I would also suggest including in the conclusion section but also in several other places in the manuscript discussion and comparison with findings from other authors with similar published research work.
15- It is recommendable to add below references in order to underline the connections of the manuscript with the aims and scope of the Journal.
The Effect of Different Twisted Tape Inserts Configurations on Fluid Flow Characteristics, Pressure Drop, Thermo-hydraulic Performance and Heat Transfer Enhancement in the 3D Circular Tube.
Thermal flow and heat performance analyses in circular pipe using different twisted tape parameters based on design of experiments.
Characterization of internal thermohydraulic flow and heat transfer improvement in a three-dimensional circular corrugated tube surfaces based on numerical simulation and design of experiment.
Effect of different corrugation interruptions Parameters on thermohydrodynamic characteristics and heat transfer performance of 3D Three-dimensional corrugated tube.
Investigation of thermal flow structure and performance heat transfer in three-dimensional circular pipe using twisted tape based on Taguchi method analysis.
Investigation of the effect of various corrugated pipe configurations on thermo-hydraulic flow and enhancement of heat transfer performance with the development of different correlations.
Flow Field Structure, Characteristics of Thermo-Hydraulic and Heat Transfer Performance Analysis in a Three Dimensions Circular Tube with Different Ball Turbulators Configurations.
Analysis on flow structure and improvement of heat transfer in 3D circular tube with varying axial groove turbulator configurations.
A numerical study to investigate the effect of turbulators on thermal flow and heat performance of a 3D pipe.
Investigation of Thermo-Hydraulics Flow and Augmentation of Heat Transfer in the Circular Pipe by Combined Using Corrugated Tube with Dimples and Fitted with Varying Tape
Flow felid and heat transfer enhancement investigations by using a combination of corrugated tubes with a twisted tape within 3D circular tube based on different dimple configurations
Investigation of flow pattern, thermohydraulic performance and heat transfer improvement in 3D corrugated circular pipe under varying structure configuration parameters with development different correlations
Investigation on effects of varying geometrical configurations on thermal hydraulics flow in a 3D corrugated pipe
16- The conclusion section on lacks in summative conclusions. The main results, novelty and academic contributions should be emphasized in this section. Moreover, are the results obtained in this paper really applicable in other similar researches?
17- In the discussion development, it is very important to emphasize points of agreement or disagreement between results in this work and others cited in references part of manuscript.
18- Authors should discuss limitations of the current study and possible improvements for future directions/research works.
19- Finally, the author to read through the whole text and correct it to make it more reader-friendly.
Author Response
Dear professor:
We have carefully revised the article as you suggested.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The purpose of this study is to verify the influence of the location of reinforcement materials on the dynamic characteristics of reinforced retaining wall. The FLAC3D finite difference method is used to solve the nonlinear problem. Through the analysis of the horizontal displacement of the panel, the vertical and horizontal earth pressure behind the wall and the distribution of the potential sliding surface under different reinforcement layout conditions in the model, it is proved that the reinforcement of the material and the location of the reinforcement will affect the dynamic response of the reinforced retaining wall. Finally, Matlab is used to program, through fitting and the relationship with the maximum horizontal displacement, Gauss polynomial is used to fit the final practical formula. In short, the research topic of this paper has practical value, rich content, and has certain guiding significance for the actual engineering construction. However, the following modifications are required :
1. The subheading of picture 2 is not in the middle ; picture5,8,9are not in the middle ; the layout of picture 3 and picture 4 is unreasonable, and it is recommended to format. At the same time, check the layout and layout of the pictures and make changes.
2. Tables 1, 2 and 3 are not centrally aligned and it is recommended that changes be made and other charts be examined in their own format.
3. The layout of line 138 formula has problems and should be carefully checked and adjusted. If formulas ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) are not in the middle, formulas ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) are not aligned. Other formula typesetting problems should be checked and changed.
4. In line 322, the columns of ΔH / H1 in Table 4 are not aligned, and whether it is possible to list each page in the layout of the table. When a table is cross-page, it is recommended to show the header in the continued table on the second page.
5. Some references have been more than five years, or even more than 10 years, and it is worth considering whether they are still referential.
6. Line 395 cited literature 7 miles too large, suggested modification.
7. In the construction of the template span, the model selected in the modeling should be explained, why its size is such ? What are the benefits of choosing this size ? Is it applied to practice ?
8. Line 113 should be mentioned in the front of table 4, should be appropriate layout.
9. Line 124 2.3 Seismic load subheading should be changed to 2.3.Seismic load ; note that spelling should be seismic load. It can also be changed into earthquake load.
10. Formula ( 3 ) Formula ( 4 ) in line 145 suggests that the feasibility of introducing relevant factors be proved by reference to literature or specifications.
11. In line 202, it is recommended to make a simple description of Figure 10 and then draw a conclusion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear professor:
We have carefully revised the article as you suggested.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript investigates the role of the position of the reinforcement layers on the dynamic response of a stepped reinforced retaining wall, by means of numerical modelling. The horizontal displacement of the panel, the position of the potential sliding surface, as well as the vertical and horizontal earth pressure behind the wall are analyzed by varying the reinforcement arrangement. Moreover, a fitting formula is proposed for the assessment of the maximum horizontal displacements by using a Matlab routine.
I am listing the following several points that I suggest the Authors should address to improve the paper.
1) The definition of K and G in Equation 4 is missing.
2) The modeling of concrete by means of a linear elastic law is not very precise, since concrete exhibits a strong non-linear behavior, even for low loads. Moreover, the density of concrete seems a little bit underestimated, if standard concrete is used. As regards non-lightweight concrete, 2400 kg/m3 and 2500 kg/m3 are the most common values for unreinforced and reinforced concrete, respectively.
3) Check the description in 2.2 with respect to Figure 3. Are the dimensions all correct?
4) Check the format of the unit of measurement in the Tables. Sometimes there are parentheses, whereas sometimes they are missed.
5) The Equations or symbols in the text are often not aligned with the text.
6) The description of the static experimental text used for the validation of the numerical model should be improved by adding all the relevant data.
7) The legend of the contours in Fig. 13 is not clearly readable because it is too small. Moreover, it should report the unit of measurement.
8) When there are two graphs in the same Figure, they should be labeled as a) and b), with the related caption. See for Example Fig. 16. Moreover, the size of “Fitted curve” in the two graphs in Figure 16 should be the same.
9) I think the Authors should try to summarize together points 1,2 and 4 of the conclusions, because in the present form the conclusions are not so clearly explained.
10) Check the format of the reference list.
11) The manuscript requires significant proofreading and revision to improve the quality of English. Some grammatical errors, as well as misprints, occur throughout the manuscript and they need to be addressed.
Author Response
Dear professor:
We have carefully revised the article as you suggested.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the authors have greatly improved their paper, and in my opinion now it can be accepted in the present form for publication.
