Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Potential of Sensing for Breast Cancer Detection
Previous Article in Journal
Feasibility of a Patient-Specific Bolus Using the Life-Casting Method for Radiation Therapy
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on the Optimization of Pile Length of Micropiles in Soil Landslides

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9980; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179980
by Hui Cheng 1, Guochen Sui 2, Guanglu Wang 3, Junfeng Deng 2, Huan Wei 2, Rui Xu 2,*, Youshan He 2 and Wei Yang 2
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9980; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179980
Submission received: 4 August 2023 / Revised: 28 August 2023 / Accepted: 2 September 2023 / Published: 4 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Civil Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with optimization of anchoring length of micropiles. It is a numerical work based on a respective Chinese code. Basically I dont know the code and the methodology used in the aforementioned code and correspondingly the process used in the current manuscript. However, the optimized length calculated in the paper under review is based only on structural considerations. It is not considered anywhere any geotechnical criteria dealing with the sliping plane. This is due to the fact that the anchoring length should be positioned under this plane of action. Therefore the paper must discuss and clarify this task. Consequently, the recommendation is to be revised respecting the above mention observations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

  Thank you very much for the interesting article submitted to the journal. I have read your article with interest. The article made a favorable impression on me.

I would like to note that the article provides an in-depth review of articles on this research topic. It follows that the authors approached the writing of the article responsibly.

However, I would like to make the following remarks and comments on the article:

1. The titles of the sections of the article do not correspond to the IMRAD format. Please rename the sections according to the IMRAD format. Headings other than IMRAD are best used only for subsections, paragraphs and subparagraphs (with their multi-level numbering).

2. It is recommended to compare the calculated data obtained by the method proposed by the authors with the results of other authors. It seems to me that in this case the scientific novelty of the article would greatly benefit. This is especially true of the Results and Discussion sections.

 

In general, the article, after a slight revision, is recommended for publication in the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop