Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt

Xingliang Xu; Suchuan Tian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227539

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2019
5 Sep 2019 Decision Letter - Anna Pandolfi, Editor PONE-D-19-21977 Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt PLOS ONE Dear Dr Tian, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Anna Pandolfi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 1. Please include in your Methods section the vendor details for all equipment and materials used, in order to enhance reproducibility. 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Please answer the comments of the reviewers and try to improve the general presentation of the manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The response of resin grouted anchors with the steel threaded tendon to the axial loading is explored in presented study via laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. The simplified trilinear analytical model is used for mathematical description of the relationship between the shear stress and displacement in the bond length of anchor. The equation for the deduction of critical anchor length was determined based on the analytical model supported by the experimental and numerical results. I agree with the authors note, which says: “The load transfer mechanism of anchor bolts is a research hot-spot “. The presented manuscript has a great chance to become a valuable contribution to the discussion regarding the determination of both safe and cost-effective rock anchors. However, the manuscript needs to undergo major revision before it will be published. See the general comments to the manuscript below. (The specific questions, comments and notes are added in the attached pdf file with manuscript). General comments: - The laboratory testing campaign was performed. At least some summary of the number of conducted tests (with the description of every group of tested anchors regarding lengths) should be presented. Otherwise the support of the conclusions by the experiments can´t be evaluated properly. - The analytical model which was used is not applicable without the knowledge of shear stress and shear displacement values related to the specific anchor. Stress-strain diagram of tested anchors (Or at least the values of stress and strain which are essential for the use of mentioned model) is worth to include in article. It is in line with the demand of availability of the data underlying the findings. - The more attention should be paid to the logical organizing structure of text. There are some results presented in the paragraph 3.3 (Results). Then the methodology of numerical modelling is mentioned (Methods). From this point in the manuscript it can starts to be complicated to the reader to distinguish which discussed results are related to the laboratory experiment and which to the numerical simulation. It would be also good to improve the captions of graphs in this way. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-21977_reviewer response.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2019 Author Response Dear Editor: Thank you very much for your letter on 6 September, 2019, regarding the comments and suggestions made on our paper entitled “Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt” (ID: PONE-D-19-21977). The comments are very valuable and very helpful to us when revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made the required revisions. Enclosed are a clean copy of our revised manuscript (see ‘Manuscript-Revised’), a marked-up copy of our manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version (see ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’ and ‘Manuscript-Revised _HighlightedCopy’), and a detailed response letter to the editors and reviewers explaining the changes we have made (see ‘Response to the Reviewers’). The main revisions to the manuscript and our response to you and the reviewers’ comments are as follows: Journal Requirement: 1. Please include in your Methods section the vendor details for all equipment and materials used, in order to enhance reproducibility. Response: Thank the Editor for the kind recommendation. The LW-1000 horizontal tensile test machine is provided by Hangzhou Yingmin Technology Co., Ltd(Zhejiang China). The left-handed threaded steel anchor bolts and the resin cartridge are provided by Xuzhou Baoding Support Technology Co., Ltd(Jiangsu China). The strain gauges and TS3890 static resistance strain gauges are provided by Jiangsu Donghua Testing Technology Co., Ltd(Jiangsu China). 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: We are very sorry for our negligence and thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. We have described and referenced Table 2 in the text. The revised details can be found in Line 130-132, Page 5(Revised Manuscript). Reviewer Comment: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Response: Thanks for the reviewer. The conclusions of this paper are obtained by theoretical analysis, laboratory test and numerical simulation. The data of this paper are all real data. The result of data analysis is promoted to the theoretical level, so as to reach the final conclusion, which is in line with the logic thinking and methods commonly used in scientific research. Moreover, the operation process of the laboratory test in this paper conforms to the test specifications, so the data obtained is reliable enough to support the conclusion of this paper. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Response: Thanks for the reviewer.All the data in this paper are real data. The analysis of the data was carried out according to the corresponding scientific norms without any falsification. The conclusions of this paper are based on the real data and scientific and technological standards, and the conclusions are credible. Therefore, the author thinks that the statistical analysis is appropriate and rigorous. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. The curves in this paper are all based on the obtained data, which can reflect the data and its changing trend. If the data supporting all graphs is added to the paper, it will not only duplicate the contents of graphs, but also lead to the verbose and complex structure of the paper. Therefore, all data are provided separately. Please refer to attached files for details. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Response: Thank the Reviewer for the kind recommendation. The English throughout has been revised by the native English-speaking professors using track change in MS Word. ‘Language Revision with Track Change.doc’ and ‘Language Revision Certificate.pdf’ issued by the service, are all uploaded for your references. 5. ①The laboratory testing campaign was performed. At least some summary of the number of conducted tests (with the description of every group of tested anchors regarding lengths) should be presented. Otherwise the support of the conclusions by the experiments can´t be evaluated properly. Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. In this paper, the mechanical properties of the anchorage body of the anchor under different anchorage lengths (500mm、1000mm and 1500mm) and pull-out forces (25kN、50kN、75kN、100kN) are tested. Each scheme was tested twice, so a total of 14 tests were carried out, and then the test data were analyzed and selected. We add the above summary to the paper. The revised details can be found in Line 149-150 and Page 6. ②The analytical model which was used is not applicable without the knowledge of shear stress and shear displacement values related to the specific anchor. Stress-strain diagram of tested anchors (Or at least the values of stress and strain which are essential for the use of mentioned model) is worth to include in article. It is in line with the demand of availability of the data underlying the findings. Response: Thanks for the reviewer’s kind suggestion. This paper focuses on the mechanical characteristics of the anchorage section in the elastic stage. According to the previous studies (reference 29, 30, etc.), the mechanical model adopted in this paper is the most consistent with the shear stress displacement relationship of the anchorage interface in the elastic stage, and the experimental research in the following paper also verifies the correctness of the model. At the same time, according to the suggestions put forward by the reviewer, the relationship diagram between pull-out force and displacement and failure form diagram of the anchor during the test process were added, which provides more evidence for the credibility of the data on which the research results are based. The revised details can be found in Line 153-160, page 4. ③The more attention should be paid to the logical organizing structure of text. There are some results presented in the paragraph 3.3 (Results). Then the methodology of numerical modelling is mentioned (Methods). From this point in the manuscript it can starts to be complicated to the reader to distinguish which discussed results are related to the laboratory experiment and which to the numerical simulation. It would be also good to improve the captions of graphs in this way. Response: Thanks for the Reviewer. According to the reviewer's suggestion, the author has reorganized the article structure of the third part in the form of research method-research scheme-research results. Please see the new manuscript for details. The revised details can be found in Line 116-117,129-143,161-162,187,205-206,213, page 5-8. We would like to thank the Reviewers for the kind comments and appreciate the Editor’s and Reviewers’ diligence. We trust that the revisions will meet with your approval. Once again, thank you very much for your time in this matter. Yours sincerely, Xingliang Xu, Suchuan Tian Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r002
15 Nov 2019 Decision Letter - Anna Pandolfi, Editor PONE-D-19-21977R1 Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt PLOS ONE Dear Dr Tian, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 30 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Anna Pandolfi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): You are invited to address both comments of the reviewer, with a particular care on the first one. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The calculation formula for the critical anchorage length of the bolt is derived in the article. The plausibility of presented equation is supported by result of laboratory tests performed on ground anchors and by the results of FEM numerical modeling. Comments to the revised manuscript: The structure of the text of reviewed version is much better organized. Text is now logically sequenced. Many missing information was added. Misunderstandings were clarified. However, there are still two more things needed to be done, from my point of view. The first commend arose after the author´s revision of the manuscript. The second comment has not been addressed by the authors. 1/ The term “different” used in the recently added lines 134-136 need to be explained. I cite: …” … deformation characteristics of different interface of anchorage are different”.” … model was adjusted by setting different contact mechanical parameters”. The values of parameters mentioned in these sentences should be added into the manuscript. 2/ Some extra details about the sensors used for laboratory testing has been introduced by the authors. However, even with this new information, I am still asking one question to the authors: “How were the strain gauges (e. g. 15 gauges in case of Lb = 1500 mm) connected to the datalogger? If a real photo of rod with installed gauges (and/or detail of installation of gauge on the threaded bar) exists, I encourage the authors to publish it, in order to enhance reproducibility of their work. (It can be added, for example, to the fig. 5). ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r003
Revision 2
13 Dec 2019 Author Response Dear Editor: Thank you very much for your letter on 15 November, 2019, regarding the comments and suggestions made on our paper entitled “Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt” (ID: PONE-D-19-21977 R1). The comments are very valuable and very helpful to us when revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made the required revisions. Enclosed are a clean copy of our revised manuscript (see ‘Revised Manuscript’), a copy of revised manuscript with track changes (see ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’), and a detailed response letter to the editors and reviewers explaining the changes we have made (see ‘Response to Reviewers’). The main revisions to the manuscript and our response to the reviewers’ comments are as follows: 1. The term “different” used in the recently added lines 134-136 need to be explained. I cite: …” … deformation characteristics of different interface of anchorage are different”.” … model was adjusted by setting different contact mechanical parameters”. The values of parameters mentioned in these sentences should be added into the manuscript. Response: Thanks for the reviewer for the good comment. I have added two interface parameters mentioned by reviewers in the new manuscript, namely, "In the anchor bolt–anchoring agent interface, the ultimate shear stress and shear stiffness are 8 MPa and 500 MPa/m. In the anchoring agent–borehole wall interface, the ultimate shear stress and shear stiffness are 4.5 MPa and 300 MPa/m." The revised details can be found in Line 135-137 and Page 5. 2. Some extra details about the sensors used for laboratory testing has been introduced by the authors. However, even with this new information, I am still asking one question to the authors: “How were the strain gauges (e. g. 15 gauges in case of Lb = 1500 mm) connected to the datalogger? If a real photo of rod with installed gauges (and/or detail of installation of gauge on the threaded bar) exists, I encourage the authors to publish it, in order to enhance reproducibility of their work. (It can be added, for example, to the fig. 5). Response: Thanks for the Reviewer. The wire is connected with one end of the strain gauge. The strain gauge is pasted on the corresponding position of the anchor rod with glue. The wire is led out from the near end of the steel pipe and connected with the data collecting instrument. Place the bolt with strain gauge in the center of the steel pipe, and quickly inject the mixed anchoring agent. The test can be carried out after the anchoring agent solidifies. Due to the author's negligence, some test scenes were not photographed during the test. In order to make up for the author's negligence and provide the following scholars with experimental reference, the author has made a schematic diagram of the installation structure of anchor bolt and strain gauge. The revised details can be found in page 56 in “Revised Figures.doc”. We would like to thank the Reviewers for the kind comments and appreciate the Editor’s and Reviewers’ diligence. We trust that the revisions will meet with your approval. Once again, thank you very much for your time in this matter. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely, Xingliang Xu, Suchuan Tian tiansc@cumt.edu.cn Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r004
23 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Anna Pandolfi, Editor Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt PONE-D-19-21977R2 Dear Dr. Tian, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Anna Pandolfi, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Jan 2020 Acceptance Letter - Anna Pandolfi, Editor PONE-D-19-21977R2 Load transfer mechanism and critical length of anchorage zone for anchor bolt Dear Dr. Tian: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anna Pandolfi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227539.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .