Review Reports
- Stefano Vigna1,*,†,
- Maddalena Marchelli2,† and
- Valerio De Biagi2,†
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Xinpo Li
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe ms presents a complete numerical assessment of rockfall
protection embarkments with natural soils, which are very practical
materials for this purpose.
It is probably a little long, but is well organized and
reports useful simulations.
I have only minor comments.
Check thoroughly the Enslish against typos and similar errors (e.g., lines 18, 119, 175, 435, 459, ... and others).
Explain all acronyms when occurring the first time in the ms
(e.g., HDPE high-density polyethylene).
Figure 1. The RPE in b is clear, not so the one in fig. a.
Show it with arrows or put a better image.
Figure 2: "Frame" would be better than "Photogram".
Comments on the Quality of English Language
only few corrections needed
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Authors carried out study on the FEM numerical simulation of rockfall protection embankments in natural soil. The study is design oriented and will be of interested by engineers and researchers. Some minor revisions are suggested.
1. The first part of Introduction has too many paragraphs. Please avoid too much very short paragraphs in the whole manuscripte.
2. Peila et al. (2000) can not be found in reference list.
3. Fig 3 (a): please enlarge the letters and mark ha on the figure.
4. The structure of Introduction can be optimized (the subtitle 1.1 can be eliminated).
5. What is flow stress ratio K? Please provide more explaination and defination in the context.
6. A condensation to the part of 2.1 is recommended.
7. The interaction between embankment and the foundation is not studied in this paper. Sliding failure may unlikely occure for a pure soil embankment under the impact of a rock block. Please discuss this issue in the appropriate context and give explaination to choose of friction coefficient 0.5.
8. The title of part 2 can be reconsidered more elaborate to present the material of this part.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageOverall quality of English is good. A refinement in writing is recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx