Study on the Style Design and Anchoring Mechanism of Enlarged Head Anchors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper represents “Study on the style design and anchoring mechanism of
enlarged head anchor”. However, corrections are required before accepting the manuscript. The authors should submit a very thoroughly revised version, addressing the comments mentioned in below:

1.      The authors should explain the research gap, objectives and novelty of the work properly in introduction section. Introduction section needs major improvement. Also it is recommended to re-write the abstract. In abstract highlight the research gap, major goals, novelty of the work, some results and contribution of this research work to the society.

2.      It is recommended to re-ckeck the citation of previous research paper as per the journal format. Some places it has been mentioned in name and some places in number.

3.      It is recommended to include the derivation of pull-out force in Appendix section.

4.      Table 3 and Fig.1 is not clear for readership.

5.      It is recommended to include scaling law for laboratory model test.

6.      It is recommended to include the bed preparation of soil in details.

7.      It is suggested to improve the conclusion and include the value based results in conclusion part. 

8.      It is suggested to include the limitation and future prospective of this study.

9.      English language should be improved throughout the manuscript.

English language should be improved throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of the work is good, but the scope is limited. The followings are outlined:

1.    Table 2 lists parameters of sand but it is not clear how the authors obtained these parameters and why these are different than those used in the experimental part (Table 5).

2.    It is not clear how the authors obtained the values listed in Table 5. Which tests have been conducted and how the results were interpreted.

3.    Also, what is the stress level for the modulus of elasticity presented in table 5.

4.    There is a high different between the theoretical experimental results. The authors need to justify why.

5.    Overall, the paper is weak with limited scope. The authors need to carry out parametric studies to show the influencing parameters on the pull-out force.

 

 

 The idea of the work is good, but the scope is limited. The followings are outlined:

1.    Table 2 lists parameters of sand but it is not clear how the authors obtained these parameters and why these are different than those used in the experimental part (Table 5).

2.    It is not clear how the authors obtained the values listed in Table 5. Which tests have been conducted and how the results were interpreted.

3.    Also, what is the stress level for the modulus of elasticity presented in table 5.

4.    There is a high different between the theoretical experimental results. The authors need to justify why.

5.    Overall, the paper is weak with limited scope. The authors need to carry out parametric studies to show the influencing parameters on the pull-out force.

I do not have any. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer outlined issues in the paper related to the derivation of the parameters and the need to carry out parametric study to improve the work. However, this has not been addressed by the authors and there are many questions related to the repeatability of the work and the validation of the solution for different scenarios. In addition, there is a big issue related to the check of the theoretical and measured results. Thus, I still cannot recommend it for publication. 

 

N/A

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the work and hence I think the work could be considered by the editor for acceptance.