Centrifugal Model Test of Multi-Level Slope under Combined Support of Pile-Anchor and Frame-Anchor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Table 1, change "cohesive" to "cohesion". "Cohesive force" (force) should also be replaced by cohesion (stress) throughout the text.
2. Table 2, check the scale of time with the scales of acceleration and length.
3. Figure 2, mark "Unit in mm".
4. Figure 4, please mark the dimensional lengths of the frame and the linked piles as well as the anchor connectors.
5. In Figs. 6 and 7, please check the unit of distance to pile top (should be pile head)
6. In Eq. 1, the definition of strain and its working direction should be addressed.
7. It is clearly that the test results are dependent of the acceleration applied to the physical model. The author should discuss what would be the optimized g in their tests and the potential use of the Centrifuge test to help the design.
8. Although this study is based on experimental test only, its results seem to be reliable and informative. It is suggested the authors could compare the results with numerical simulations for more sound applications.
Author Response
Comments 1: Table 1, change "cohesive" to "cohesion". "Cohesive force" (force) should also be replaced by cohesion (stress) throughout the text.
Response 1: According to your comments, we have revised “cohesive” to “cohesion” in Table 1 (original Table 1). The term “cohesive force” has also been replaced with “cohesion” throughout the text. Please refer to the revised manuscript for detailed modifications.
Comments 2: Table 2, check the scale of time with the scales of acceleration and length.
Response 2: According to your comments, we have checked and modified the time similarity ratio in Table 2 (original Table 2). The time similarity ratios in the centrifugal test are relatively special. When the geometrical similarity ratio between prototype and model is n, and the centrifugal acceleration is n, the similarity ratio of inertia time is 1/n, and the similarity ratio of consolidation time is 1/n2. This test mainly involves inertia force, so the “time” in Table 2 has been limited to “inertia time”. (Related literature: (1) Ren Y, Li TB, Yang L, Wei DQ, Tang JL. Stability analysis of ultra-high-steep reinforced soil-filled slopes based on centrifugal model tests and numerical calculation. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2022, 44(05): 836-844. (2) Si HY, Chang HT, Chen QY, Ye GB, Tian GL. Centrifugal model tests on D-M method. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2011, 33(S1): 406-409.)
Comments 3: Figure 2, mark "Unit in mm".
Response 3: According to your comments, we have checked the units in Figure 3 (original figure 2), and all the values are in “mm”. There are too many numbers in the figure to add the unit after each number, so we have labeled the unit in the figure name.
Comments 4: Figure 4, please mark the dimensional lengths of the frame and the linked piles as well as the anchor connectors.
Response 4: According to your comments, we have added the dimensions of the slope and the piles in Figure 5 (original figure 4). At the same time, in order to express the structural dimensions more clearly, we have also labeled the dimensions of the scaled structures and structural connectors in Figure 4 (original figure 3). In addition, Section 2.3 describes the cross-sectional dimensions of the scaled structures in detail. In the model, the cross-section size of the scaled pile is 24 mm × 24 mm, the total length is 300 mm, the length of the supporting section is 160 mm, and the length of the embedded section is 140 mm. the cross-section size of the scaled frame is 8 mm × 10 mm, and the horizontal spacing between the columns and the vertical spacing between the beams are 50 mm. There are three different sizes of anchor rods, their anchoring section lengths are 140mm, 180mm and 200mm respectively. There are two different sizes of structural connectors, the length of the pile-anchor connector is 35mm and the length of the frame-anchor connector is 13mm.
Comments 5: In Figs. 6 and 7, please check the unit of distance to pile top (should be pile head).
Response 5: According to your comments, we have modified the units in Figure 7 and Figure 8 (original Figure 6 and Figure 7). The length of the prototype pile is 15m, of which the length of the supporting section is 8m and the length of the embedded section is 7m. under the condition of geometric similarity ratio n=50, the length of the scaled down pile is 300mm, of which the length of the supporting section is 160mm and the length of the embedded section is 140mm. the dimensions in the figures before modification are the same as that of the prototype pile, and the dimensions in the figures after modification are the same as that of the model pile. It is more reasonable after modification.
Comments 6: In Eq. 1, the definition of strain and its working direction should be addressed.
Response 6: According to your comments, we have provided further clarification on the definition of strain and its working direction, the details of which are reflected in Section 3.1. Strain in the text refers to the microstrain values measured by strain gauges. is the microstrain measured by the strain gage on the left side of the pile at measurement point in Figure 5 (original figure 4), and is the microstrain measured by the strain gage on the right side of the pile at measurement point in Figure 5 (original figure 4). When - is positive, it means that the left side of the pile at the measurement point is under tension and the bending moment value is positive. When - is negative, it means that the left side of the pile at the measurement point is compressed and the bending moment is negative.
Comments 7: It is clearly that the test results are dependent of the acceleration applied to the physical model. The author should discuss what would be the optimized g in their tests and the potential use of the Centrifuge test to help the design.
Response 7: According to your comments, we have added to the manuscript regarding the relationship of test results to centrifugal acceleration and the possibility of centrifugal tests to aid in design. The details are reflected in section 2. Centrifugal acceleration, as a key parameter in the test, has an important effect on model stresses and structural forces, etc. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the manuscript detail the stresses of piles, frames and anchor rods under different centrifugal accelerations. Meanwhile, among all centrifugal accelerations, only one centrifugal acceleration corresponds to the prototype slope. The dimensions of the slope in the test were reduced by a factor of 50. This means that the stress state of the model slope under 50g centrifugal acceleration is the same as that of the prototype slope. With the help of centrifugal model test, the smaller size model can reach the same stress level as the prototype, realizing the real simulation of the prototype, reproducing the deformation and damage process of the prototype, and providing intuitive basis for understanding the mechanical behavior in the actual engineering.
Comments 8: Although this study is based on experimental test only, its results seem to be reliable and informative. It is suggested the authors could compare the results with numerical simulations for more sound applications.
Response 8: According to your comments, we have supplemented the numerical simulation, and the relevant content is specifically reflected in section 3.3. Through the numerical simulation results, we can clearly see the deformation range of the slope and the distribution of the deformation amount. The overall deformation range of the slope is large. Both in the pile anchoring section and in the frame-anchoring section, the anchor rods are located within the deformation zone. The maximum deformation is located at the bottom of the frame anchor support part. It can be seen that the numerical simulation results are consistent with the conclusions obtained through centrifugal model tests This further validates the reasonableness of our conclusions and recommendations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article should specify the method of arranging the base soils – layer-by-layer sealing, ramming or otherwise.
It is necessary to supplement the article with a description of the control of uniform or uneven distribution of moisture and humidity for each of the provided foundation soils.
It is required to specify the values of the prestressing of the anchors when they are installed in the soil base, as well as the weight of the structures to be arranged.
Comparative studies should be carried out in order to identify the difference and increase the stability of the presented model without and with soil reinforcement by the proposed structural elements.
The above test results should be compared, among other things, with the results of numerical modeling for verification and further development of the direction due to the high level of complexity of the studies performed, as well as their labor intensity and high cost. Verification of several experimental models with numerical modeling will allow performing calculations to substantiate design decisions and not in every case perform large-scale and expensive research in a geotechnical centrifuge.
Author Response
Comments 1: The article should specify the method of arranging the base soils – layer-by-layer sealing, ramming or otherwise.
Response 1: According to your comments, we have supplemented the filling method of reshaped sandstone and reshaped soil in the model box, and the relevant content is reflected in Section 2.5. The density was strictly controlled during filling. The soil was filled in layers according to the slope shape and anchor rod locations in Figure 6 (original Figure 5). The depths of filling were 100mm, 100mm, 80mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm and 30mm in sequence. The specific filling steps are as follows: first, the weighed soil is poured into the model box, smoothed and compacted to a predetermined elevation. Then, excavate part of the soil, arrange anchors, and recompact the excavated soil. Finally, the soil surface is loosened and the next layer of soil mass is filled. Follow this procedure to fill the soil layer by layer until it reaches the design elevation. The specific model making process is shown in Figure 6.
Comments 2: It is necessary to supplement the article with a description of the control of uniform or uneven distribution of moisture and humidity for each of the provided foundation soils.
Response 2: According to your comments, we have added specific parameters for remodeled sandstone and remodeled soils, which are reflected in Section 2.3. In order to meet the similarity of geotechnical materials, the in-situ soil taken from the site was reshaped based on the measured geotechnical parameters in Table 1. The remodeled sandstone is formed by mixing loess and cement with water, where the mass ratio of loess and cement is 5:1 and the water content is 8.0%. The density was controlled to be 1835 kg/m³ during filling. The water content of the reshaped loess was 9.5%, and its density was 1750 kg/m³ during filling. The soil parameters measured after filling are shown in Table 3.
they are installed in the soil base, as well as the weight of the structures to be arranged.
Response 3: The anchor rods involved in the model test were non-prestressed anchors, so we did not apply prestressing in the model. In addition, the materials of the scaled structure chosen for the model test were very similar to the materials of the prototype structure. The materials of the prototype structure are steel and concrete, and the materials of the scaled structure are iron wire and cement. They are very close in mechanical properties and weight. This is in line with the requirement that centrifugal model test reproducing the actual material as much as possible, so the influence of structural weight can be ignored in the tests.
Comments 4: Comparative studies should be carried out in order to identify the difference and increase the stability of the presented model without and with soil reinforcement by the proposed structural elements.
Response 4: The main objective of this study is to analyze the structural force and slope deformation that are of great concern in engineering through centrifugal model test, as well as to provide some targeted suggestions for the design of pile-anchor and frame-anchor joint support structure. Section 4 of the manuscript gives two suggestions based on the experimental results. These two suggestions are at the macro level and do not involve specific optimized structures, so we did not conduct a comparative study.
Comments 5: The above test results should be compared, among other things, with the results of numerical modeling for verification and further development of the direction due to the high level of complexity of the studies performed, as well as their labor intensity and high cost. Verification of several experimental models with numerical modeling will allow performing calculations to substantiate design decisions and not in every case perform large-scale and expensive research in a geotechnical centrifuge.
Response 5: According to your comments, we have supplemented the numerical simulation, and the relevant content is specifically reflected in section 3.3. Through the numerical simulation results, we can clearly see the deformation range of the slope and the distribution of the deformation amount. The overall deformation range of the slope is large. Both in the pile anchoring section and in the frame-anchoring section, the anchor rods are located within the deformation zone. The maximum deformation is located at the bottom of the frame anchor support part. It can be seen that the numerical simulation results are consistent with the conclusions obtained through centrifugal model tests This further validates the reasonableness of our conclusions and recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCentrifugal model test was conducted to assess the stability of multi-level slope supported by pile-anchor and frame-anchor. The experimental attempt of this study is interesting. However, the reviewer cannot understand the treatment of the results. Therefore, overall revision is needed before publication. Please refer the following specific comments for revision or future works.
1. Page 2, "2.1. Overview of Prototype Slope": Specific dimensions of the model are described here. However, it is difficult to understand those values without figures (graphical illustrations). Detailed explanation of the model is described using Figs. 2 to 5. Please consider a combination of those descriptions and restructuring of the contents.
2. Table 1: What are geotechnical parameters? Are those soil properties of the real ground or Target values for the model? "cohesive" should be "cohesion".
3. Page 4, "(1) Model Soil Preparation" and Page 6, "Model Making Process": Preparation of model ground is uncertain. How was the homogeneous model ground made? Tamping energy or control the soil density? Additionally, please show the experimental results of strength parameters for the model soil because soil properties are very important to discuss the results obtained from this kind of model test.
4. Figures 6 and 7: Centrifugal acceleration is changed during the test. That indicates the model scale is also change through the centrifugal acceleration. Why is "the distance to pile top" same in all centrifugal acceleration? The same problem can also be applied to the following figures.
5. According to above described issue, the reviewer cannot understand the necessity of discussion and conclusions described in the manuscript. At least, the manuscript needs to overall revision including change of objective about the treatment of the experiment so that the readers can understand the effectiveness and applicability of the results to the real problem.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The reviewer can understand the English meanings in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: Page 2, "2.1. Overview of Prototype Slope": Specific dimensions of the model are described here. However, it is difficult to understand those values without figures (graphical illustrations). Detailed explanation of the model is described using Figs. 2 to 5. Please consider a combination of those descriptions and restructuring of the contents.
Response 1: According to your comments, we have added a three-dimensional view of the prototype slope in section 2.1 (Figure 1). The combination of 3D views and textual descriptions makes it more intuitive to understand the specific dimensions of the prototype slope. Figures 3 to 6 (original Figures 2 to 5) are scaled model diagrams, and the relationship between them and the dimensions of the prototype slope satisfies the geometric similarity ratio n=50, i.e., the dimensions of the scaled model are 1/50 of the dimensions of the prototype slope.
Comments 2: Table 1: What are geotechnical parameters? Are those soil properties of the real ground or Target values for the model? "cohesive" should be "cohesion".
Response 2: The geotechnical parameters in Table 1 refer to the soil parameters in the prototype slope. We have changed the name of Table 1 according to your comments. The term “cohesive” has also been replaced with “cohesion” throughout the text.
Comments 3: Page 4, "(1) Model Soil Preparation" and Page 6, "Model Making Process": Preparation of model ground is uncertain. How was the homogeneous model ground made? Tamping energy or control the soil density? Additionally, please show the experimental results of strength parameters for the model soil because soil properties are very important to discuss the results obtained from this kind of model test.
Response 3: According to your suggestions, we have added details of soil filling in “(1) Model Soil Preparation” on page 4 and “Model Making Process” on page 6. In order to meet the similarity of geotechnical materials, the in-situ soil taken from the site was reshaped based on the measured geotechnical parameters in Table 1. The remodeled sandstone is formed by mixing loess and cement with water, where the mass ratio of loess and cement is 5:1 and the water content is 8.0%. The density was controlled to be 1835 kg/m³ during filling. The water content of the reshaped loess was 9.5%, and its density was 1750 kg/m³ during filling. The density was strictly controlled during filling. The soil was filled in layers according to the slope shape and anchor rod locations in Figure 3 (original Figure 2). The depths of filling were 100mm, 100mm, 80mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm and 30mm in sequence. The soil parameters measured after filling are shown in Table 3. The specific model making process is shown in Figure 6 (original Figure 5).
Comments 4: Figures 6 and 7: Centrifugal acceleration is changed during the test. That indicates the model scale is also change through the centrifugal acceleration. Why is "the distance to pile top" same in all centrifugal acceleration? The same problem can also be applied to the following figures.
Response 4: The centrifugal test can compensate for the loss of self-weight caused by model size reduction with the help of centrifugal acceleration. Taking a model scaled down by a factor of n as an example, the vertical stress at a certain point when the model is placed in a 1g gravity field is 1/n of the corresponding position of the prototype, and the vertical stress at that point is the same as that of the prototype when the model is placed in a ng gravity field. The stress state in the model change at different centrifugal accelerations, but the force acting on the structure is synchronized with the centrifugal acceleration. Therefore, the distribution law of structural forces does not necessarily change substantially with centrifugal acceleration in general. This can be seen in many literatures. (Zhang YS, Lei YC, Qiang XJ, Wu DD, Wang DP, Wang JH. Centrifugal model test of slope reinforced by multi-row micro-pile frame structure. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2023, 44(07): 1983-1994. https://doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2022.1283.)
Comments 5: According to above described issue, the reviewer cannot understand the necessity of discussion and conclusions described in the manuscript. At least, the manuscript needs to overall revision including change of objective about the treatment of the experiment so that the readers can understand the effectiveness and applicability of the results to the real problem.
Response 5: In response to the above questions, we have carried out a comprehensive verification, given detailed response to each question, and added and improved the relevant contents in the manuscript. The manuscript has now been revised as a whole. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe corrections made to the manuscript are sufficient for the possibility of acceptance for publication
Author Response
Comments 1: The article should specify the method of arranging the base soils – layer-by-layer sealing, ramming or otherwise.
Response 1: According to your comments, we have supplemented the filling method of reshaped sandstone and reshaped soil, and the relevant content is reflected in Section 2.5. The soil was filled in layers according to the slope shape and anchor rod locations in Figure 6 (original Figure 5). The depths of filling were 100mm, 100mm, 80mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm, 60mm, 50mm, 50mm, 50mm and 30mm in sequence. The density was strictly controlled during model soil filling. During the sandstone fill stage, place and secure the scaled piles. During the loess filling stage, when the soil is filled to the corresponding height of each layer of anchor rods, the soil within the designated area for anchor placement is excavated. After placing the anchor rods, the excavated soil is re-compacted, and then the soil surface is loosened to facilitate the subsequent filling of the next layer of soil. This process is repeated until the design elevation is reached. The specific model making process is shown in Figure 6.
Comments 2: It is necessary to supplement the article with a description of the control of uniform or uneven distribution of moisture and humidity for each of the provided foundation soils.
Response 2: According to your comments, we have added specific parameters for remodeled sandstone and remodeled soils, which are reflected in Section 2.3. In order to meet the similarity of geotechnical materials, the in-situ soil taken from the site was reshaped based on the measured geotechnical parameters in Table 1. The remodeled sandstone is formed by mixing loess and cement with water, where the mass ratio of loess and cement is 5:1 and the water content is 8.0%. The density was controlled to be 1835 kg/m³ during filling. The water content of the reshaped loess was 9.5%, and its density was 1750 kg/m³ during filling. The soil parameters measured after filling are shown in Table 3. The model soil made based on these control parameters was closest to the in-situ soil in terms of cohesion and internal friction angle, as shown in Table 3. During the centrifugal test, we filled the model soil strictly according to the above ratio and density.
Comments 3: It is required to specify the values of the prestressing of the anchors when they are installed in the soil base, as well as the weight of the structures to be arranged.
Response 3: The anchor rods involved in the model test were non-prestressed anchors, so we did not apply prestressing in the model. In addition, the materials of the scaled structure chosen for the model test were very similar to the materials of the prototype structure. The materials of the prototype structure are steel and concrete, and the materials of the scaled structure are iron wire and cement. They are very close in mechanical properties and weight. This is in line with the requirement that centrifugal model test reproducing the actual material as much as possible, so the influence of structural weight can be ignored in the tests.
Comments 4: Comparative studies should be carried out in order to identify the difference and increase the stability of the presented model without and with soil reinforcement by the proposed structural elements.
Response 4: The main objective of this study is to analyze the structural force and slope deformation that are of great concern in engineering through centrifugal model test, as well as to provide some targeted suggestions for the design of pile-anchor and frame-anchor joint support structure. Section 4 of the manuscript gives two suggestions based on the experimental results. These two suggestions are at the macro level and do not involve specific optimized structures, so we did not conduct a comparative study.
Comments 5: The above test results should be compared, among other things, with the results of numerical modeling for verification and further development of the direction due to the high level of complexity of the studies performed, as well as their labor intensity and high cost. Verification of several experimental models with numerical modeling will allow performing calculations to substantiate design decisions and not in every case perform large-scale and expensive research in a geotechnical centrifuge.
Response 5: According to your comments, we have supplemented the numerical simulation, and the relevant content is specifically reflected in section 3.3. In the finite element model, the soil material is simulated by Mohr-Coulomb model, the frame beam is simulated by conventional beam unit, the pile is simulated by plate unit, and the anchored section and free section of the anchor are simulated by Embedded pile and point-to-point anchor, respectively. Through the numerical simulation results, we can clearly see the deformation range of the slope and the distribution of the deformation amount. The overall deformation range of the slope is large. Both in the pile anchoring section and in the frame-anchoring section, the anchor rods are located within the deformation zone. The maximum deformation is located at the bottom of the frame anchor support part. It can be seen that the numerical simulation results are consistent with the conclusions obtained through centrifugal model tests This further validates the reasonableness of our conclusions and recommendations.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer has carefully checked the manuscript again. However, it is difficult to understand the objectives in this study. the authors need to describe more clearly how the test results are available in the practical problems. Following items are specific comments to revise the manuscript.
1. Related to the comment No. 3: Please use the consistent unit between Tables 1 and 2: unit weight or density.
2. Related to the comment No. 3, "The soil parameters measured after filling are shown in Table 3": Please explain how to measure the soil parameters after filling.
3. Related to the comment No. 4: The reviewer understood that centrifugal acceleration is used to increase loading or earth pressure. If so, the similarity law in Table 2 (e.g. length) is not applied to the increasing centrifugal acceleration tests. Please describe clearly this fact in the manuscript. If the authors discuss in the model size, the model soil properties, which is very close to the real soil's, is very effective on the results. Please explain the effect of soil parameters in the results. Moreover, the centrifugal acceleration, which are shown in the legends in the figures, is not important in this kind of test. The authors should more focus on the discussion using load or earth pressure, which is controlled by the centrifugal acceleration.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The reviewer can understand the English meanings in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: Related to the comment No. 3: Please use the consistent unit between Tables 1 and 2: unit weight or density.
Response 1: According to your suggestions, we have adjusted the units in the table, and the units currently used are all density. It should be explained that there is a direct conversion relationship between the unit of unit weight and density, 1kN/m3=100kg/m3. Unit weight is a commonly used mechanical parameter in descriptions involving soil properties. However, from a practical point of view, it is more feasible to use density as a control index for model soil filling.
Comments 2: Related to the comment No. 3, "The soil parameters measured after filling are shown in Table 3": Please explain how to measure the soil parameters after filling.
Response 2: According to your suggestions, we have explained the soil parameters in Table 3 in the manuscript. The soil parameters in Table 3 were measured by preparatory tests. Before the start of the centrifugal test, in order to obtain a model soil similar to the in-situ soil, we measured the cohesion and internal friction angle of the remolded soil at different water contents and different fill densities based on the straight shear test. By comparison, we finalized how to remodel the soil. The remodeled sandstone is formed by mixing loess and cement with water, where the mass ratio of loess and cement is 5:1 and the water content is 8.0%. The density was controlled to be 1835 kg/m³ during filling. The water content of the reshaped loess was 9.5%, and its density was 1750 kg/m³ during filling. The model soil made based on these control parameters was closest to the in-situ soil in terms of cohesion and internal friction angle, as shown in Table 3. During the centrifugal test, we filled the model soil strictly according to the above ratio and density.
Comments 3: Related to the comment No. 4: The reviewer understood that centrifugal acceleration is used to increase loading or earth pressure. If so, the similarity law in Table 2 (e.g. length) is not applied to the increasing centrifugal acceleration tests. Please describe clearly this fact in the manuscript. If the authors discuss in the model size, the model soil properties, which is very close to the real soil's, is very effective on the results. Please explain the effect of soil parameters in the results. Moreover, the centrifugal acceleration, which are shown in the legends in the figures, is not important in this kind of test. The authors should more focus on the discussion using load or earth pressure, which is controlled by the centrifugal acceleration.
Response 3: Centrifugal model tests utilize centrifugal force generated by centrifuges to simulate the gravitational environment and reproduce the stress state and deformation process of the prototype in a reduced model size. The similarity ratio between the model and the prototype in the test is fixed, and it is not affected by acceleration. The similarity ratios for all centrifugal model test were the same as the scaling relationships in Table 2. Meanwhile, the model material in the centrifugal test should be as close as possible to the prototype material in terms of physical properties. Only when they are similar, the scaled model under centrifugal force can truly restore the stress state of the prototype. If they have a large difference, then the scaled model can not restore the stress state of the prototype even under the centrifugal force. In addition, we also focused on the variation of soil pressure under centrifugal acceleration. In Figures 8, 9 and 11, we detail the distribution and variation of soil pressures on the frame and piles.
To illustrate the above, I provide the following papers. In all of these papers, the similarity ratios of the model to the prototype are the same as the scaling relationships in Table 2 of the manuscript, and the centrifugal accelerations are all increasing during centrifugal loading. Also, the authors of the papers all discuss the relationship between structural forces and centrifugal acceleration.
- Zhang H, Xing HF; Zhu L, Tannant D; Guo XP. Centrifuge model tests of h-type anti-slide pile reinforced slope under different rainfall duration. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2024.2338771
- Sabermahani M, Ahimoghadam F, Ghalehnovi V. Effect of surcharge magnitude on soil-nailed wall behaviour in a geotechnical centrifuge. International journal of physical modelling in geotechnics, 2018, 18(05): 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.16.00022
- Zhang YS, Lei YC, Qiang XJ, Wu DD, Wang DP, Wang JH. Centrifugal model test of slope reinforced by multi-row micro-pile frame structure. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2023, 44(07): 1983-1994. https://doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2022.1283.
- Xiang B, Ma JL, He YY, Zhu L, Zhang ZY. Centrifugal model test of slope reinforced by small-diameter steel pipe row piles. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2012,31(S1):2644-2652.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer has carefully checked the manuscript again. However, the reviewer cannot fully understand and accept the authors' response. Therefore, the reviewer suggests acceptable revision method. Following items are specific comments to revise the manuscript.
1. Related to the comment No. 3: For example, in Fig. 7: When the similarity ratios in Table 2 are applied to the tests, the distance to pile top (vertical axis) should be varied in prototype with centrifugal acceleration because "the distance to pile top" has the length dimension. When the same scale is preferable in comparison, please use dimensionless value, such as ratio.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The reviewer can understand the English meanings in the manuscript.
Author Response
Comments 1: Related to the comment No. 3: For example, in Fig. 7: When the similarity ratios in Table 2 are applied to the tests, the distance to pile top (vertical axis) should be varied in prototype with centrifugal acceleration because "the distance to pile top" has the length dimension. When the same scale is preferable in comparison, please use dimensionless value, such as ratio.
Response 1: According to your suggestions, we have modified Figure 7. The modified vertical axis shows "ratio of distance to pile top to pile length", which is a dimensionless value. It refers to the ratio of the distance from the monitoring point to the pile top to the total length of the pile. Meanwhile, the same problem exists in Fig. 8, and we have modified it together.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are some figures in which the similarity laws are not applied. According to the reviewer's suggestion, the authors changed the axis to the non-dimensional values. Therefore, there is no more comment from the reviewer.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The reviewer can understand the English meanings in the manuscript.
Author Response
We have modified the axis you mentioned to the non-dimensional values. Thank you very much for your valuable comments, your suggestions are very helpful in improving the quality of the paper.
