Bearing Capacity Design of Strength Composite Piles Considering Dominant Failure Modes and Calibrated Adjustment Coefficients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a theoretical article, but the analyses presented here are firmly grounded in actual pile tests performed during the construction of engineering structures (159 static load tests of piles from 44 engineering projects). Theoretical studies of the pile calculation methods were validated using 112 additional test cases. This constitutes a vast body of research material, completed on a full-scale. Despite the clear definition of the content, the observed differences in coefficient values, and the conducted analyses, the authors did not dare to more clearly systematize the values ​​of correction factors for designing the load-bearing capacity of SC piles. There is no indication of an engineering solution (especially regarding the values ​​of correction factors). Detailed comments are included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SUMMARY
The authors calculated the bearing capacity of composite piles, taking into account the main types of fracture and calibrated correction coefficients.
The relevance of this study is due to the fact that high–strength composite piles are a new type of composite piles consisting of concrete tubular piles and cement-soil piles widely used in China.
This is an important engineering solution, which, nevertheless, needs additional scientific research.
The authors identified a problem – a discrepancy between theoretical forecasts and the measured load-bearing capacity.
The methods used by the authors are modern, and the results show that the proposed method effectively takes into account the properties of materials in design, ensuring accuracy, reliability and engineering applicability.
All this testifies to the high scientific level of this article and the importance of the work done by the authors. 
Nevertheless, I have a number of serious concerns. They are listed below.

COMMENTS
1. The authors should work out the abstract more carefully. It makes no sense to give a general definition of the term "high-strength composite piles" at the beginning of the abstract. Instead, I would like to see the relevance of the research and the formulation of the scientific problem. A scientific problem should demonstrate the absence of certain scientific knowledge, patterns and dependencies between the bearing capacity of such piles and the main types of destruction, as well as the need for scientific justification of certain correction factors.
2. In the abstract, I would also like to see what new scientific results have been obtained, what theoretical concepts have been developed or created for the first time. In particular, the end of the abstract shows only the engineering result that the proposed method is reliable in design.
3. Keywords include 7 terms. However, some of them do not seem applicable enough for this particular article. For example, the terms "design method" and "statistical analysis" can be removed, and instead more specific terms for this particular study can be added. It's more appropriate this way.
4. The Introduction section is uninformative. The authors analyzed only 5 literature sources here. This is very small and the introduction does not look sufficient. The authors should have paid much more attention to the introductory part. It is proposed to present here a review and analysis of at least 25 sources of literature on the research topic in order to better reflect the current state of the problem. 
5. The drawings in the article are of poor quality. For example, in Figures 1, 2, 3, 7 it is difficult to make out the inscriptions and symbols. The image quality should be significantly improved. 
6. Unfortunately, there are no photographic materials in the article. I would like to see photos of the real objects in question. The authors need to search for and submit such photos, or take their own photos. Otherwise, the visual perception of this article suffers. 
7. The scientific problem, the purpose and objectives of the research are not well formulated. This should be specified. 
8. It is proposed to translate the article into the IMRAD format. This is a more familiar format for research articles with an engineering application. 
9. The methodology should be shown in more detail. It is unclear on the basis of which the data was selected for analysis, as well as for the development of engineering solutions. I would like to see the methodological scheme of the study.
10. The discussion of the results obtained should be presented in a separate paragraph. I would like to see a detailed comparison of the results obtained with the results of other authors. The most convenient format will be a comparison table, which will show the advantages and disadvantages of the results obtained, their differences from previously known similar works, as well as the risks and limitations.
11. Unfortunately, there is a lack of interesting research on concretes with a tubular configuration and an annular section in the scientific literature in the list of sources used. Such studies of pipes, piles, columns were carried out earlier and interesting engineering results were obtained for their calculation. The authors are invited to work with the scientific literature on this topic in more detail. 
12. The list of references should be significantly increased, and instead of 22 sources, we would like to see at least 45-50 sources. 
13. There are also some errors in the wording of the English language in the article. Editing is required in terms of English, grammar, and presentation style.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account all the reviewer's comments and provided comprehensive responses to the comments. The revised manuscript demonstrates significant improvements both scientifically and visually. The reviewer has no more comments and the manuscript can be published in the journal in its current form.