Method to Control the Deformation of Anti-Slide Piles in Zhenzilin Landslide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript is resubmitted after initial rejection by Anonymous Reviewers. Authors clearly put effort to correct their manuscript according to Reviewers comments.

My comments are:

• references should be put in brackets [], not in exponent (minor change)
• based on initial manuscript, again authors fail to clearly emphasize what is the main aim and goal of their study - only one sentence is present here.
• Figure 2 is blurry. Font is very strange and some things cannot be read.
• Table 1 - please try to get names of each columns to be readable, not cutted by rows.
• Something is strange here? k1=7000 kPa/m in caption of Figure 8, yet in Figure is written 70 000!!! The same goes for Table 2, and for text in page 11, latest paragraph. Is it 7000 or 70 000? line 289/290
• Also 1.0x10^5 kPa/m is not 10 000, yet 100 000?
• Check caption in Figure 9. Such a mistake after re-submission should be checked.
• page 16, line 384, 389...etc. check for correct values?!, 7000 or 70000? 10000 or 100000? 13000 or 130000? in whole manuscript. 
• It is not in line with Figure 11...
• In Disscusion part, how is your study related to similar studies? Only one reference is shown [31] line 350? I think it would be good to compare your results to similar and novel studies as you mentioned them in Introduction part.
• Check MDPI template for references, fonts, style, etc.

I cannot hide dissapointment for some beginners mistakes, and I would expect that manuscript would be correct in much more details after initial rejection. I would give chance to authors to correct their manuscript after major revision.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your insightful review of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to each of your comments review are as under.

1、references should be put in brackets [], not in exponent (minor change)

Answer 1: All references have been cited within square parentheses [].

2、based on initial manuscript, again authors fail to clearly emphasize what is the main aim and goal of their study - only one sentence is present here.

Answer 2: The main aim and objective of our study have been explicitly stated in the revised manuscript.

3、Figure 2 is blurry. Font is very strange and some things cannot be read.

Answer 3: Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) have been recreated to clarify the text using an appropriate font style.

4、Table 1 - please try to get names of each columns to be readable, not cutted by rows.

Answer 4: The names of all columns in Table 1 have been edited to make them readable.

5、 Something is strange here? k1=7000 kPa/m in the caption of Figure 8, yet in Figure is written 70 000!!! The same goes for Table 2, and for text in page 11, latest paragraph. Is it 7000 or 70 000? line 289/290.

   Answer 5: The value of k₁ has been revised in the revised manuscript to 70,000.

6、Also 1.0x10^5 kPa/m is not 10 000, yet 100 000? Check caption in Figure 9. Such a mistake after re-submission should be checked. 1.0x10^5 kPa/m is right.

Answer 6: All figure captions have been checked and appropriate corrections have been made where necessary.

7、    page 16, line 384, 389...etc. check for correct values?!, 7000 or 70000? 10000 or 100000? 13000 or 130000? in whole manuscript.

Answer 7: All problematic values of k variables have been revised in the manuscript to make them consistent.

8、It is not in line with Figure 11.

Answer 8: The value of k₁ in Figure 11 is correct.

9、In Disscusion part, how is your study related to similar studies? Only one reference is shown [31] line 350? I think it would be good to compare your results to similar and novel studies as you mentioned them in Introduction part.

Answer 9: In the Discussion section, we have compared our results to those reported in other similar studies.

10、  Check MDPI template for references, fonts, style, etc.

Answer 10: We have made necassary corrections to adhere to the MDPI manuscript formatting template.

11、I cannot hide dissapointment for some beginners mistakes, and I would expect that manuscript would be correct in much more details after initial rejection. I would give chance to authors to correct their manuscript after major revision.

Answer 11: Thank you very much for allowing me to modify the article, We trust that this revised draft of our manuscript meets your publication requirements.

Once again, we appreciate your helpful review of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dr. Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting and the methods used are prototypes.

The results are well documented and it seems to be good. 

The article can be published in the journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your insightful review of our manuscript and recommending the same for publication in Applied Sciences. We trust that our revised manuscript meets all publishing requirements.

Once again, we appreciate your helpful review of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dr. Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The attached file contains notes with suggestions to the authors. Most of the marked places don't contain comments, but corrections there are obvious. If it is possible, could the authors consider shortening the text in some places? At least in the discussion, introducing, for example, a table with results instead of describing them in detail - lines 352 to 418.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your insightful review of our manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript based on your suggestions and comments. Our responses to each of your comments are as under.

1、The attached file contains notes with suggestions to the authors. Most of the marked places don't contain comments, but corrections there are obvious.

Answer 1: Every instances of marked text in the manuscript denote modifications made in accordance with accordance with the contents of the attached file.

2、If it is possible, could the authors consider shortening the text in some places? At least in the discussion, introducing, for example, a table with results instead of describing them in detail - lines 352 to 418.

Answer 2: The manuscript length has been reduced. Contents in lines 352–418 have been condensed to fewer sentences.

Thank you very much for allowing us to make revisions to our manuscript. we have tried our best to ensure the revised manuscript meets publishing requirements of Applied Sciences.

Once again, we appreciate your helpful review of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dr. Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Review

of the manuscript "Deformation Control Method of Anti-slide Pile in the Zhenzilin landslide"

The manuscript is devoted to an actual topic and concerns the development of a methodology for calculating displacements of anti-landslide piles reinforced in a two-layer substrate with various mechanical properties of the layers. This determines the novelty of the proposed calculation. The authors set as their goal the development of a technique based on algebraic formulas that would allow calculating pile displacements without using the expensive finite element method software. This would make it more affordable and faster to carry out such calculations in practice. In the article, the authors showed a high professional level and significant practical experience in the work on anti-landslide hillside strengthening. The article corresponds to the subject of the journal and will arouse interest among specialists working in this and related fields. At the same time, the article has a number of shortcomings that must be corrected. The article cannot be published without their correction.

Major issues

1. The article does not consider the impact on the characteristics of anti-landslide protection using piles of changes in the properties of rocks and soils with increasing humidity caused by rains, although this factor is mentioned in the manuscript.
2. If this protection is located in a seismically active zone, authors should also take into account the seismic effect of vibrations that lead to a greater probability of a landslide. Anti-landslide protection calculated according to the attached formulas may be ineffective, and this may lead to disastrous consequences.
3. The relationship in line 145 should be explained in more detail. If the β the modulus of deformation is, and it is measured in N / m², and h is the length of the pile, then their product gives the dimensional value. For one of the typical values of the limestone deformation modulus of 50 GPA (table. 1) and the length of the pile h = 13 m, the product is 65 * 10¹⁰ N/m, which is significantly more than 2.5. For a shorter length of the buried part of the pile, the value of the same order will be obtained. This section of the article should be completely rewritten with explanations.
4. It is necessary to explain in more detail what the reaction modulus k means, how it is calculated, what its physical meaning is, and what units is it measured in?
5. Also, explanations for the formula in line 150 should be given. If Bp is the width measured in meters, then 1 in the right part of the expression must have dimension, but it is missing.
6. The authors write in the explanation of formulas (6), that Q_y is the force, M_y is the bending moment, i.e. the dimensions of the force and the bending moment must be different. At the same time, it follows from formulas (6) that these parameters have the same dimension. Authors should either make corrections to the formulas in the manuscript, or provide a more detailed explanation. It is not clear what q₀ is, especially since this value is not included in expressions (6).
7. The pile displacements above the point of the sliding surface (Fig. 5) are determined by both the load and torque above this point, and the resistance forces below it. However, formulas (7)-(10) take into account only the first part and do not contain expressions describing the second part, which gives reason to doubt their correctness.
8. In line 210, the authors write that " ... Young's modulus (E) of the anti-slide pile is 3.0 x 10⁷ KPa...", i.e. 30 MPa. This value of the Young's modulus is typical for soil. As far as it is clear from the article, reinforced concrete piles are used. The Young's modulus should be not 30 MPa, but 30 GPa.
9. The authors should give a more detailed explanation of what the reaction module is. Is it a modulus of elasticity or something else?
10. The authors did not provide parameters for the accuracy of the obtained dependence (11), in particular, the standard deviation, which in practice can lead to erroneous calculations.

Minor issues

1. Unclear icon in formula (8), it may be likely y. You should fix it.
2. Typos in line 260. Instead of "...was is... " must be "...was...".
3. The notation ω is used instead of the denotation ε in figure 11, which confuses the understanding of the meaning of the article.
4. Zhen Zilin in lines 430-432 should be written as elsewhere in the article Zhenzilin.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your insightful review. We have carefully revised our manuscript based on your feedback. Our responses to each your review comments are as under.

1、The article does not consider the impact on the characteristics of anti-landslide protection using piles of changes in the properties of rocks and soils with increasing humidity caused by rains, although this factor is mentioned in the manuscript.

Answer 1: Let us clarify that we have indeed considered the impact on rains, which tends to reduce the strength of the bedrock under the sidling surface. The impact of rainfall on piles is mainly due to increased landslide thrust above the sidling surface. Therefore, in Figure 6, a curve with a thrust of 1,500 kN has been added to compare with the curve corresponding to a thrust of 1,550 kN by this paper method.

2、If this protection is located in a seismically active zone, authors should also take into account the seismic effect of vibrations that lead to a greater probability of a landslide. Anti-landslide protection calculated according to the attached formulas may be ineffective, and this may lead to disastrous consequences.

Answer 2: The seismic effect of vibrations is very complex, and reuires use finite element modeling for accurate analysis. The foundation coefficient method was employed in this study to investigate pile deformation, and it has been assumed that the earthquake effect has been considered in the calculation of landslide thrust. Consequently, seismic effects have not been discussed at depth in the manuscript.

3、The relationship in line 145 should be explained in more detail. If the β the modulus of deformation is, and it is measured in N / m2, and h is the length of the pile, then their product gives the dimensional value. For one of the typical values of the limestone deformation modulus of 50 GPA (table. 1) and the length of the pile h = 13 m, the product is 65 * 1010 N/m, which is significantly more than 2.5. For a shorter length of the buried part of the pile, the value of the same order will be obtained. This section of the article should be completely rewritten with explanations.

Answer 3: β denotes the deformation coefficient of the pile, and it is measured in m^-1; k denotes the modulus of subgrade reaction of the bedrock, and it is measured in kPa/m; E denotes the Young’s modulus of the pile, and it is measured in kPa; h denotes the embedded section length of the pile.  If k = 1 x 10⁸ Pa/m, E = 30 GPa, B_p = 3m, I = 4.5 m⁴, h = 7,  m^-1, β× h = 1.08.  This section has been newly included in the revised manuscript.

4. It is necessary to explain in more detail what the reaction modulus k means, how it is calculated, what its physical meaning is, and what units is it measured in?

Answer 4: The reaction modulus k has been explained in greater detail in the revised manuscript by stating that the value of k can be determined based on the compressive strength of the rock according to reference [36]. In the case of a round pile, k can be determined using the expression k = 2 N D according to reference [24].

5、Also, explanations for the formula in line 150 should be given. If Bp is the width measured in meters, then 1 in the right part of the expression must have dimension, but it is missing.

Answer 5: An appropriate explanation for the expression in line 150 has been provided.

6. The authors write in the explanation of formulas (6), that Qy is the force, My is the bending moment, i.e. the dimensions of the force and the bending moment must be different. At the same time, it follows from formulas (6) that these parameters have the same dimension. Authors should either make corrections to the formulas in the manuscript, or provide a more detailed explanation. It is not clear what q0 is, especially since this value is not included in expressions (6).

Answer 6: Expressions in equation (6) have been corrected to provide a more detailed explanation. The variable q0 has been deleted.

7. The pile displacements above the point of the sliding surface (Fig. 5) are determined by both the load and torque above this point, and the resistance forces below it. However, formulas (7)-(10) take into account only the first part and do not contain expressions describing the second part, which gives reason to doubt their correctness.

Answer 7: Equations (7)–(10) have been checked for accuracy, and appropriate explanations have been provided where necessary. X₀, and θ₀ denote the horizontal displacement and rotation angle of the pile at the slip surface, respectively, which take into account the second part.

8. In line 210, the authors write that " ... Young's modulus (E) of the anti-slide pile is 3.0 x 107KPa...", i.e. 30 MPa. This value of the Young's modulus is typical for soil. As far as it is clear from the article, reinforced concrete piles are used. The Young's modulus should be not 30 MPa, but 30 GPa.

Answer 8: Value of the Young's modulus E has been confirmed to be 30 GPa = 3.0 x 10⁷ kPa = 3 x 10¹⁰ Pa.

9. The authors should give a more detailed explanation of what the reaction module is. Is it a modulus of elasticity or something else?

Answer 9: The reaction module has been given a more detailed explanation. The modulus of subgrade reaction of the bedrock denotes the elastic modulus along the horizontal direction, which when multiplied by bedrock deformation equals the reaction force of the bedrock acting on the pile.

10、The authors did not provide parameters for the accuracy of the obtained dependence (11), in particular, the standard deviation, which in practice can lead to erroneous calculations

Answer 10: More parameters have been provided to explain how dependence (11) can be obtained.

11、Unclear icon in formula (8), it may be likely y. You should fix it.

Answer 11: Appropriate corrections have been made in the revised manuscript.

12、Typos in line 260. Instead of "...was is... " must be "...was...".

Answer 12: Appropriate corrections have been made in the revised manuscript.

13、The notation ω is used instead of the denotation ε in figure 11, which confuses the understanding of the meaning of the article.

Answer 13: Figure 11 has been recreated based on your feedback.

14、Zhen Zilin in lines 430-432 should be written as elsewhere in the article Zhenzilin.

Answer 14: Appropriate corrections have been made in the revised manuscript.

Thank you very much for allowing us to modify our manuscript. We have tried our best to ensure the revised manuscript meets publication requirements of Applied Sciences.

Once again, we appreciate your helpful review of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Dr. Wang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the figures, put space between number and unita, e.q., 70000kPa --> 70000 kPa

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors made serious changes to the text of the article, and also gave sufficient answers to all the questions of the reviewer. In this form, the article can be published in the journal Applied Sciences.