A Multi-Segment Expanded Anchor for Landslide Emergency Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The abstract can be mentioned with the objectives of the paper instead of conclusions.
2. In section 1, the authors contributions should be highlighted.
3. References citations are not in the order. For example, [9], [12].
4. Authors are strongly recommended to refer to the state-of-the-art literature on the selected topic.
5. Literature review can be improved.
6. The full forms are missing. For example, BC, CD, etc.,
7. Results should be compared with existing work to prove the novelty.
8. Conclusion section should be mentioned as a paragraph with continuity.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the editor and reviewer very much for their constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “A multi-segment expanded anchor cable for landslide emergency management” (which was changed into “A multi-segment expanded anchor for landslide emergency management” in the revised manuscript). We have studied the editor’s/reviewer’s comments very carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly with trace marks. Authors pay special thanks to the editor and reviewer because their comments and suggestions have contributed greatly to the improvement of the structure and quality of the whole manuscript. We hope that these changes to the manuscript will facilitate the decision to publish this manuscript in this journal.
Thank you for your consideration again.
With kind regards,
Dong Yang.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
· The author must include some case studies in details, showing that the grouted anchors have limitations.
· Instead of concluding at the start of the manuscript (abstract), the authors must include the prominent results in the abstract.
· The authors are specific to the grouted rock bolts as conventional rock bolts. How about the mechanical anchors?
· The author must include the systematic review in the topic, keeping in mind their study scope, and then stat the problem statement.
· A detailed study is available for the factors affecting the rock bolt performance in relatively small rock bolts cases. The authors can get help while enriching their literature.
Classification of factors affecting the performance of fully grouted rock bolts with empirical classification systems
· Show the field test location and map and the test photos in the article.
· Discuss the test procedures with figures.
· In results, the authors have just listed their observations. Discuss it logically and keep the literature in reference, which could reflect the behaviour of cables.
· References are missing in section 4.
· Define all the abbreviations/symbols used in the equations.
· The conclusion must be concise and be based on the results of the article.
· Any real field application of the anchor cables?
· Practical application and limitations of these anchors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer：
Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. We appreciate the editor and reviewer very much for their constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “A multi-segment expanded anchor cable for landslide emergency management” (which was changed into “A multi-segment expanded anchor for landslide emergency management” in the revised manuscript). We have studied the editor’s/reviewer’s comments very carefully and modified the manuscript accordingly with trace marks. Authors pay special thanks to the editor and reviewer because their comments and suggestions have contributed greatly to the improvement of the structure and quality of the whole manuscript. We hope that these changes to the manuscript will facilitate the decision to publish this manuscript in this journal.
Thank you for your consideration again.
With kind regards,
Dong Yang.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
.
