Static and Dynamic Response of Micropiles Used for Reinforcing Slopes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This scientific article that we have appraised is a high quality work. It is well written, clear, precise, relevant in its form and especially in terms of its demonstration. The methodology is clearly presented, the demonstration is of quality and allows a valid answer to the questions asked. The figures are numerous and really support the demonstration. The bibliographical references are numerous, recent, in short it is a very relevant scientific analysis. This excellent quality research work deserves to be validated as it is.Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and thank you for your recognition of the work of this paper. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
"Discussion" section must be improved. It is not entirely clear the correlation between the paper's aim and the results presented. It is necessary to provide more information and above all, a discussion in depth of implication of their study.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We are very sorry to understand the discussion as a summary. Combined with the suggestions of you and the other two reviewers, we have changed “discussion” into “conclusion”, and the corrected content is as follows:
The static model test and shaking table test were performed by us to study the anti-sliding characteristics of the interaction between the micropiles and the landslide under static and dynamic loading. Through systematic research and comparison, the reinforcing mechanism, seismic response mechanism and failure modes of the micropiles are discussed. It may be expected that in reality, the dynamic situation involves a larger failure/slide body because of the importance of inertia effects of the slope. The results show that under static and dynamic, the distribution of earth pressure, bending moment and axial force of each row of piles are different, and the landslide thrust of each row of piles also has a certain proportion, which is not balanced distribution. In addition, the rear row piles should be paid the most attention, which obtained in the article provide a more reliable basis for the design of the micropiles in landslide prevention and slope stabilization design. However, this article still has the following shortcomings: (1) The sliding surfaces of the two tests are all preset sliding surfaces, which may more or less affect the results; (2) In the dynamic test of this paper, only horizontal earthquakes were considered, and the combine effects of horizontal and vertical earthquakes can be considered in the later stage; (3) While not being mandatory, it would be interesting to see comparison of test results with numerical analyses. This may be considered as future work.
Moreover, the purpose of this article is to have a deeper understanding of the static and dynamic interaction of the micropile reinforced landslide, and to clarify the characteristics of the force and deformation of the micropile. Therefore, this paper carried out static and dynamic model tests. and obtained relevant results. Then apply the result to practice, and provide a more reliable basis for the design of micropile in landslide prevention and stability design. As to how to apply the results of this article in practice and what can be learned from the results, the following brief answers have been made:
For how to apply, we can in the design process, combining the results, for the reinforcement of soil landslides, we can consider increasing the number of longitudinal steel bars near 3 times the pile diameter above and below the sliding surface of the micropile, which can avoid damage caused by excessive bending moment. In addition, the results show that the damage degree and landslide thrust of the rear row piles are significantly greater than the first two rows piles, which can be taken to enlarge the rear row pile diameter to improve the bending resistance. Moreover, through reduce the pile spacing to enhance the overall stability of the micropiles, etc. Therefore, the reinforcement capacity of the rear row of piles can be strengthened during the design process, especially in earthquake areas. Of course, other scholars can learn from this article the reinforcement and stability effect of micro-pile on the slope, as well as the reinforcement mechanism, seismic response mechanism and failure mode of micro-pile, and also understand the proportion of landslide thrust that each row of piles bears when multi-row piles are used to reinforce the landslide It is not equal, but has a certain proportion. Meanwhile, the distribution of earth pressure, bending moment, and axial force behind each row of piles will also be learned. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very well planned and performed research on a relevant topic. You presented your results in a proper way. Please have a look on my detailed comments in the PDF. Please make sure to enlarge most of the photos and to include figures and graphs in high resolution.
Are you sure that there were no troubles with the measurement equipment in the earth pressure under dynamic loading? Please comment in the revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I made extensive edits in the attached pdf.
Key notes:
- The manuscript requires significant editing of the English language.
- The Discussion section is not worth being called a "Discussion". It is rather a short summary with a short discussion of experimental limitations. Please elaborate on the use of your results in real applications and try to formulate a "take-home" message for readers. It remains unclear how your experimental results can be interpreted and applied to minimize landslide hazards. What impact has the chosen geometry of piles on your results?
- The introduction lacks a description of alternative techniques and the literature review is limited to an insufficient number of references of mainly Chinese publications. Please provide a wider and more international review of the current state of research regarding the use of micropiles in landslide prevention.
In general, the scientific work seems profound and the experimental tests seem well conducted. However, due to the lack of sufficient introduction and discussion, it remains unknown what can be learned from the results and how this work differs from previous studies.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has been improved, as suggested into the review. Some aspects, such as quotations and general clarity could be improved more.
Author Response
The manuscript checked already by a native English-speaking colleague.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
English editing is still required!
- which is not balanced distribution -> which is not a(?) balanced distribution
- In addition, the rear row piles should be paid the most attention, which -> In addition, the rear row piles require the most attention, which... (the following half-sentence does not make sense from my point of view)
- There are more issues. Above is just an example!
There are minor editing issues such as no space before brackets and figure captions not associated to figures.
Not having a Discussion section in a scientific manuscript is a deal-breaker to me but it might be acceptable for Applied Sciences (the editor should comment on that).
You reply quite detailed in your response to my comment on what others could learn from your results but the changes in the manuscript are very small.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
