Stability Analysis of Filled-Slope Reinforced by Frame with Prestressed Anchor-Plates under Static Action
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper carried out a stability analysis of filled-slope reinforced by frame with prestressed anchor-plates under static action by using PLAXIS 3D finite element software and Geostudio 2012 finite element software. This paper can be considered for publication after revising some points as follows:
1. Abstract is well written.
2. The Introduction section is well written by the authors. However, the research is significant from Chinese scholars. The authors should supplement literature related to the idea of this paper from international studies. I recommend the following articles related to the slip between structures and ways to improve the performance of the system, which have many points related to the content of this article.
“Numerical Investigation on Static Bending and Free Vibration Responses of Two-Layer Variable Thickness Plates with Shear Connectors”
“Finite element modeling for free vibration response of cracked stiffened FGM plates”
“Dynamic analysis of the laminated composite plate resting on two-parameter elastic foundation subjected to moving mass using finite element method”
3. In Figures 3 and 4, the geometrical dimensions of the important elements should be shown.
4. In Figures 1 to 8, the model should be placed in a cartesian coordinate system for easy visualization.
5. Equations 1 to 38 are not cited. According to the reviewer's understanding, these constituent equations are generated from the author's model and hypothesis.
6. The table of mechanical properties for soil and foundation (Tables 1 and 4) should be cited from an important source. If these parameters are determined by the author's research team, the instrumentation should be shown.
7. The approach is FEM, whether the authors investigate the convergence problem or not.
8. The discussion is rather brief. Authors should add to this section to make it rich and engaging for readers.
In addition, authors are responsible for reviewing the entire document to ensure that it is free of typographical and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your kind letter of “Stability Analysis of Filled-Slope Reinforced by Frame with Prestressed Anchor-Plates under Static Action”. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments of reviewer, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize spelling and grammatical errors. The following is our description of the revision based on the comments of reviewer.
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Abstract is well written.
Answer to Comment 1: Abstract has been revised, see Abstract.
Comment 2: The Introduction section is well written by the authors. However, the research is significant from Chinese scholars. The authors should supplement literature related to the idea of this paper from international studies. I recommend the following articles related to the slip between structures and ways to improve the performance of the system, which have many points related to the content of this article.
“Numerical Investigation on Static Bending and Free Vibration Responses of Two-Layer Variable Thickness Plates with Shear Connectors”
“Finite element modeling for free vibration response of cracked stiffened FGM plates”
“Dynamic analysis of the laminated composite plate resting on two-parameter elastic foundation subjected to moving mass using finite element method”
Answer to Comment 2: The above recommended research results have been added to the introduction, see Introduction.
Comment 3: In Figures 3 and 4, the geometrical dimensions of the important elements should be shown.
Answer to Comment 3: The important geometrical dimensions in Figures 3 and 4 have been marked, see Figures 3 and 4.
Comment 4: In Figures 1 to 8, the model should be placed in a cartesian coordinate system for easy visualization.
Answer to Comment 4: In order to keep Figures 1 to 4 clear, Figures 1 to 4 are not suitable to be placed in a Cartesian coordinate system, so Figures 1 to 4 remain as they are. But Figures 5 to 8 are placed in a Cartesian coordinate system for easy visualization, see Figures 5 to 8.
Comment 5: Equations 1 to 38 are not cited. According to the reviewer's understanding, these constituent equations are generated from the author's model and hypothesis.
Answer to Comment 5: Some of the equations from equations 1 to 38 are cited from existing research results, and the cited equations have been marked, see Equations 1 to 38.
Comment 6: The table of mechanical properties for soil and foundation (Tables 1 and 4) should be cited from an important source. If these parameters are determined by the author's research team, the instrumentation should be shown.
Answer to Comment 6: The mechanical performance parameters in Table 1 and Table 4 were measured by our team during the actual slope reinforcement process, and the instrument used was a direct shear instrument.
Comment 7: The approach is FEM, whether the authors investigate the convergence problem or not.
Answer to Comment 7: When we use the finite element software to calculate the slope stability factor, we have some research on the convergence problem. Because only when the calculation results are converged, can a more accurate stability factor of slope be obtained.
Comment 8: The discussion is rather brief. Authors should add to this section to make it rich and engaging for readers.
Answer to Comment 8: The discussion section has been supplemented and enriched, see Summary.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Jun Zhang, Weili Li, and Shuaihua Ye
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
*Overall summary:
The manuscript presents a slope stability analysis study involving reinforced frames and anchor plates, through simulation with Limit Equilibrium Methods and Finite Elements. The manuscript provides minimal novelty, with the case study considering an idealised slope and methods that are readily available in off-the-shelf standard numerical packages. Further issues with the manuscript are listed herein. Based on the simplicity of the study and the lack of novelty, I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication.
* Comments and observations:
Detailed review and elaboration of are presented below, with distinction between general (ge), technical (te), and editorial (ed) comments regarding the manuscript.
(ed) Title: Suggest capitalising the S in “Slope”
(ge) Throughout the paper, the authors refer to the “most dangerous slope”. It is unclear what this means. From my understanding of the paper, perhaps this is meant to refer to the largest slip surface volume obtained from Limit Equilibrium search methods. If this is the case, I find the concept a poor way to conduct slope stability analysis as it does not directly consider the Factor of Safety. Surely accepting the lowest Factor of Safety giving the most likely slip surface makes more sense.
(ed) Line 28 – 31: “For filled-slope, gravity retaining…”. Suggest rewording this sentence and the one directly after that.
(ge) Line 31: Which specification is referred to? This is unclear.
(ge) Line 62: Immature in what way? This is unclear.
(te) The term stability factor, first used on Line 115 is used incorrectly throughout the paper. The stability factor (N = gamma.H/c) is confused with the factor of safety. These are two different terms. This modification is required throughout the manuscript.
(te) Line 357-358: The claim that FE software can only obtain the factor of safety but not the position of the “most dangerous” slip surface is not correct. The slip surface with the lowest factor of safety is produced as a natural progression of the simulation process when using strength reduction.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your kind letter of “Stability Analysis of Filled-Slope Reinforced by Frame with Prestressed Anchor-Plates under Static Action”. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments of reviewer, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize spelling and grammatical errors. The following is our description of the revision based on the comments of reviewer.
Reviewer 2
Comment 1: (ed) Title: Suggest capitalising the S in “Slope”
Answer to Comment 1: The “s” in the “slope” in the title has been changed to a capital “S”, see the title.
Comment 2: (ge) Throughout the paper, the authors refer to the “most dangerous slope”. It is unclear what this means. From my understanding of the paper, perhaps this is meant to refer to the largest slip surface volume obtained from Limit Equilibrium search methods. If this is the case, I find the concept a poor way to conduct slope stability analysis as it does not directly consider the Factor of Safety. Surely accepting the lowest Factor of Safety giving the most likely slip surface makes more sense.
Answer to Comment 2: The “most dangerous slip surface of the slope” is mentioned in the paper, not the “most dangerous slope”. The most dangerous slip surface of the slope is that there may be a large number of arc slip surfaces in the case of arc failure of the slope, each arc slip surface should have a stability factor, and the slip surface with the smallest stability factor is the most dangerous slip surface of the slope. The stability factor is defined as the ratio of the anti-sliding moment to the downward sliding moment on the circular slip surface, so the most dangerous slip surface of the slope is closely related to the stability factor.
Comment 3: (ed) Line 28 – 31: “For filled-slope, gravity retaining…”. Suggest rewording this sentence and the one directly after that.
Answer to Comment 3: The above two sentences have been rewritten, see the first paragraph of the Introduction.
Comment 4: (ge) Line 31: Which specification is referred to? This is unclear.
Answer to Comment 4: The specification is Technical code for building slop engineering (GB 50330-2013), and it has been supplemented in the paper.
Comment 5：(ge) Line 62: Immature in what way? This is unclear.
Answer to Comment 5: From the domestic and foreign research status in the second paragraph of the introduction, it can be seen that there are very few theoretical research and numerical simulation research on the stability of filled-slope reinforced by frame with prestressed anchor-plates, so the theoretical research and numerical simulation research are immature.
Comment 6: (te) The term stability factor, first used on Line 115 is used incorrectly throughout the paper. The stability factor (N = gamma.H/c) is confused with the factor of safety. These are two different terms. This modification is required throughout the manuscript.
Answer to Comment 6: The term has been revised throughout the manuscript，see the manuscript.
Comment 7：(te) Line 357-358: The claim that FE software can only obtain the factor of safety but not the position of the “most dangerous” slip surface is not correct. The slip surface with the lowest factor of safety is produced as a natural progression of the simulation process when using strength reduction.
Answer to Comment 7: The sentences described above that are incorrect have been rewritten, see (3) in 5.1.2.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Jun Zhang, Weili Li, and Shuaihua Ye
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
the paper need revisions. Many questions has been mentioned at the paper file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer:
Thank you for your kind letter of “Stability Analysis of Filled-Slope Reinforced by Frame with Prestressed Anchor-Plates under Static Action”. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments of reviewer, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize spelling and grammatical errors. The following is our description of the revision based on the comments of reviewer.
Reviewer 3
Comment 1: the abstract isn' t clear, please re-draf with Simplified the background, Objective must clear, Material and method, Result and Discussion and Conclusion.
Answer to Comment 1: Abstract has been rewritten, see Abstract.
Comment 2：this analysis method using finite element but elasticity of materials has been not mentioned at the materials' properties table.
Answer to Comment 2: The elastic modulus of soil materials has been supplemented in tables 1 and 4, see Tables 1 and 4.
Comment 3: theory is good but at the figure 24 ad 25 didn;t represent this theory.
Answer to Comment 3: Figure 24 and Figure 25 are the results of example 2 simulated by PLAXIS 3D and GeoStudio 2012 respectively. Although the shape and position of the slip surface simulated by the finite element softwares are not exactly the same as those obtained by the method in this paper, the shape and position of the slip surface simulated by the finite element software are similar to those obtained by the method in this paper. And the difference between the stability factor of slope simulated by the finite element softwares and the stability factor of slope calculated by this method is less than 5%. Therefore, the rationality of the method in this paper can be verified.
Comment 4：figure24 and 25 need to be verified especially determinate deep of anchor.? Length of anchor must be more than slip surface.
Answer to Comment 4: Because of our carelessness, when we used PLAXIS 3D to establish the model of Example 2, we entered the length of the tie rod wrongly, which resulted in the calculated cloud map of total displacement increment being inappropriate. Now the model has been re-established and the s the stability factor of slope has been calculated, see Figure 24. In Figure 25, the anchor-plate is located outside the most dangerous slip surface, so the length of tie rod length is appropriate.
Comment 5：this analysis was considered toward elastivity of materials?
Answer to Comment 5: When using GeoStudio2012 finite element software to simulate example 2, the constitutive model of soil selected is the Mohr-Coulomb model, and the parameters that need to be input are gravity g, cohesion c and internal friction angle j.
Comment 6: Novelty isn't clear, Please brief novelty at the tha last discussion.
Answer to Comment 6: The novelty of the paper has been supplemented in the summary, see summary.
Comment 7: The Conclusions have been revised, see Conclusions.
Answer to Comment 7: The novelty of the paper has been supplemented in the summary, see summary.
Comment 8: don't put reference at the conclusion.
Answer to Comment 8: References have been removed from the conclusions and the conclusions have been revised, see Conclusions.
Comment 9: please explain with this condition.
Answer to Comment 9: The reason why the stability factor calculated by the method in this paper is smaller than that calculated by the finite element softwares has been explained in the discussion, see the summary.
Comment 10: reference is uptodate.
Answer to Comment 10: The marked references have been replaced or deleted, see References.
Thank you and best regards.
Yours sincerely,
Jun Zhang, Weili Li, and Shuaihua Ye
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
N/A
Reviewer 3 Report
the revision of manuscripts has been meet reviewer comments
