Next Article in Journal
Cloud Gaming Video Coding Optimization Based on Camera Motion-Guided Reference Frame Enhancement
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of the Erosion Damage Mechanism of Coal Gangue Slopes through Rainwater Using a 3D Discrete Element Method: A Case Study of the Guizhou Coal Gangue Slope (Southwestern China)
Previous Article in Journal
Hybrid Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm with Genetic Operators for Target Coverage Problem in Directional Wireless Sensor Networks
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Kernel Extreme Learning Machine-Grey Wolf Optimizer (KELM-GWO) Model to Predict Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on Anchorage Performance of New High-Strength Fast Anchorage Agent

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(17), 8494; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178494
by Haifeng Li 1, Kun Wang 1,*, Zizhang Dong 1 and Tao Liu 2,3
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(17), 8494; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178494
Submission received: 8 July 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 23 August 2022 / Published: 25 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-Art of Soil Dynamics and Geotechnical Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks very much for the comments! Please check the attachment for our reply. Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     A lot of sentences in the paper are confusing or difficult to understand. Besides, there are some grammar mistakes and incorrectly used words (wrong spelling?). The authors should double-check the writing before the resubmission.

2.     Figure 9 (a), horizontal axis should be “Curing time /s”. Besides, the authors need to indicate the sign convention for strain in the test.

3.     In Figure 9 (a), W-M 0.28 does not have the same trend as other cases, it seems the strain gauge data has some issues for WM 0.28 case. Please double-check the data and explain the reason in the paper.

4.     In Figure 9 (b), the bottom of the concrete sample shows totally different behaviors compared with the lateral wall (the bottom strains are all positive, however, the wall strain values are negative). Please explain the reason.

5.     In line 277, rephase “at 9.5s6kN”.

6.     In figure 11, the authors should separate the case “middle of reinforcement” since this case has much larger values compared with other cases. It is very difficult to read from the line chart for other three cases.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the comments! Please check the attachment for our reply. Thank you again!

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all the comments and I suggest the paper for publication. 

Back to TopTop