An Experimental Study of a Nailed Soil Slope: Effects of Surcharge Loading and Nails Characteristics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is original and the paper well defined. The results provide an advance' in current knowledge.
The results are interpreted appropriately and they are significant. The conclusions are justified.
The quality of the presentation is appropriate. Data are presented properly It is scientifically sound. Methods etc. are described to allow others to reproduce the results
The subject is of interest to individuals in geotechnical engineering.
Overall merit- high quality, a major analysis of an important subject English Level- generally high, some problems with grammar and word selection. Details provided later.
Overall Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions
Specific comments
Line 17 add a between using and sand
Line 52 Soil should be soil
Line56 has should be have
Line 80 add a between in and very
Line 82 have instead of has
Line 93 are instead of is
Line 99 add a between of and stronger
Line 103 add a between of and com-
Line 105 have instead of has
Line 106 add the between using and genetic
Line 113 The present rather than Present
Line 114 nail instead of nails
Line 115 nail instead of nails
Line 116 have instead of has
Line128 are instead of is
Line 131 testing instead of Testing
Line 141 tank instead of Tank
Line 147 hydraulic rather than Hydraulic
Line 150 sand used rather than used sand
Line151 add an between using and automatic
Line 154 shotcrete rather than Shot Crete
Line 164 add the between in and following
Line 165 should read field. This is due---
Line 170 and it should read which
Line 172 add a between is and base
Line176 layer instead of Layer
Line178 until instead of till
Line189 into instead of in to
Line191 add of before the
Line193 add a before 12
Line 199 change is to are
Line 200 drop s from excavations, add d to complete
Line 253 add the between of and nail. Change This to These
Line293 change second presents to presence of,change Earth to earth
Line 296 remove time, add the between of and hope, add the between then and nails
Line 300 move only to between is and under
Line 305 change to The figure shows
Line 307 change he to the
Line 342, add a between as and gravity
Line 343 abb the between at and lower
Line 351 add the between of and nails, change nails to nail's Line389 change depicts to shows, add a between has and small
Line 408, add a between that and decrease
Line 425 change nails spacing to nail-spacing
Line 442 change nails spacing to nail-spacing
Line 445 add s to difference
Line 458 add an between with and increase, change of to in
Line 466 add The before Earth, change Earth to earth, add accomplished between technique and by
Line 471 remove to
Line488 change results to causes a
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Well written.
Provided a good background of the theme.
The quality of the figures is low for many of them and should be improved specially Figure 2, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24.
Suggested review of the following lines:
- 218 (4oº);
- 270 (confused)
- 293 (word repeated)
- 312 (value offooting pressure different from the one presented in figure11).
- 362 (delete the word decrease)
- 376 (100)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
- All figures quality are low which need significant improvement. Height and width ratios in some figures are not properly maintained.
- The authors performed model tests. In fact, it is important to make sure the models (small scale) are similar to real cases (large scale). The discussion for this part is weak.
- If the 2nd comment cannot be overcome, numerical simulations will be generally applied. They can verify the trends, result accuracy, and some uncertain parameters (difficult to be measured). In fact, general FEM software can achieve this point. Only few classical cases should be performed to show that your test results are accurate and reasonable.
- The tests results are plotted based on 3 measured data which is insufficient and arbitrary, such as Figure 5. However, it still can be improved using numerical simulations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors already simulated one experimental case. However, only one comparison was done without proper discussion. In fact, the results from this analysis can be included in previous figures, such as Figures 6-13, and then more meaningful comparisons can be made. It is not necessary to draw more figures. These comparisons can show whether proper numerical modelings used. If yes, it means the model is good for practical use.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not really improve the paper. In fact, only displacement results are shown. In the contents, tensile force of nails and horizontal stresses on the slope surface are shown. However, there is no comparison with numerical results although they have been done. Only displacement results are not sufficient to support the test results which are correct. If more evidence cannot be provided, this paper is not solid enough to be published.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
