Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Need addition of few more references related to topic

Author Response

1.The English language and style have been checked and some revisions have been make.

2.More relevant references about the soil strength degradation and bearing capacity degradation have been added and the related work have been reviewed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dobry wieczór,

The reviewed article concerns an interesting and relatively rarely analyzed issue what are the model researches of bucket foundation in silty soil for engineering and in particular the Offshore wind energy in coastal areas of China. The authors focused on the problem effects of the pore water pressure on the shear strength of the soil around the bucket and the horizontal bearing capacity of the bucket foundation. The appropriate model tests were proposed, which were performed on the prototype equipment of own authorship. The research material in the form of dusty soil was taken from a wind farm in Lianyungang in China and then 10 samples were prepared and subjected to various tests in accordance with the assumed research program.

In the first part of the researches the development of pore water pressure was tested in the range:

1. The effect of the horizontal cyclic load amplitude ratio.

2. The effect of the horizontal cyclic frequency.

3. The effect of the vertical load ratio.

In the second part of the researches the effects different kind of loading and another factors on the undrained shear strength and the effects on the static horizontal bearing capacity of bucket foundation in third part.

An integral part of the work are tables with data and graphs showing the results of the research.

The article concludes with a comprehensive summary.

Critical remarks:

1.       The authors forgot to remove the authors' guidelines section from the text, lines 80-94 

2.       In view of the above, chapter 2.1 seems to be unfinished and will not be exhaustive.

3.       Informacje o mikropenetrometrze do badania wytrzymałości gruntu na ścinanie bez odpływu są lakoniczne. Nie podano jego szczegółowego opisu ani nazwy handlowej. Prawdopodobnie ten penetrometr nadaje się do badań in situ, ale czy jego rozmiar nie jest zbyt duży do badania małych próbek w laboratorium? Czy sprawdzono wpływ jego wymiarów na wynik pomiaru w warunkach laboratoryjnych?

4.       We wnioskach przedstawiono szczegółowe wyniki badań, ale brak jest komentarza dotyczącego ich praktycznego wykorzystania, co moim zdaniem jest bardzo istotne ze względu na nawiązanie przez autorów do posadowienia farm wiatrowych. Jaki sposób zastosowania przewidują autorzy?

Z poważaniem,

Author Response

1. The authors forgot to remove the authors' guidelines section from the text, lines 80-94 

       The lines 80-94 have been removed.

2. In view of the above, chapter 2.1 seems to be unfinished and will not be exhaustive.

         Chapter 2.1 is completed.

Reviewer 3 Report

jmse-2068840: “Development and influence of pore pressure around bucket foundation in silty soil”

This study performed model tests of bucket foundations in silty soil. The development of the excess pore water pressures in the different positions around the bucket was measured. Effects of the pore water pressure on the shear strength of the soil around the bucket and the horizontal bearing capacity of the bucket foundation were investigated.

The reviewer report is as follows:

       i.          The literature review in the introduction is quite limited. Many essential papers on the topic need to be included in the text.

     ii.          What is the contribution of the presented paper to the literature? Although the authors explained the improvements in the paper in the last paragraph of the introduction, it is clear that they are not new strategies and include novelty.

    iii.          What is the main novelty of the paper? Everything in the paper is a repetition of previously known documents. From this perspective, the novelty is missing.

    iv.          The results from the paper were not compared with those from the papers in the literature. In other words, benchmarking is not available in the paper. In this case, how do we decide on the adequacy/validity of the presented paper? The test experiments presented in the paper by the authors alone are not sufficient to validate the study. Moreover, the results of tests did not compare and validate with numerical analyses. 

      v.          The results were not discussed in detail in the text. They should debate them in more detail.

    vi.          In the Conclusions, the authors should briefly discuss the results obtained from the paper. Repeating the same things in the text, in conclusion, is unnecessary.

  vii.          Although the authors provided several diagrams/tables, they crowded the paper without returning helpful information. Diagrams should be more comparative and striking.

 viii.          The results obtained by the paper should be compared, and the pros and cons of the proposed method should be explained in detail.

 

The reviewer regrets that the paper is unsuitable for publication in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Author Response

1. The literature review in the introduction is quite limited. Many essential papers on the topic need to be included in the text.

More references have been added. The work in some important sections is reviewed. The section of Introduction has been expanded.

2. What is the contribution of the presented paper to the literature? Although the authors explained the improvements in the paper in the last paragraph of the introduction, it is clear that they are not new strategies and include novelty.

The contribution and strategy of this paper is added and stated in the section Discussion. “The main goal of this paper is to investigate the bearing capacity of the bucket foundation in silty soil under cyclic loading condition. It is well known that the reduction of the bearing capacity of bucket foundation may be caused by the strength degradation of the surrounding soils, which may be a consequence of the development of the pore water pressure during cyclic loading. The development of the pore water pressure due to cyclic loading, the strength degradation of the soil due to the pore water pressure accumulation, and the reduction of the bearing capacity of the bucket foundation have been analyzed extensively but separately in the literature. But these three topics have seldom been studied comprehensively and causally. This is the main concept and content of this paper.”

3. What is the main novelty of the paper? Everything in the paper is a repetition of previously known documents. From this perspective, the novelty is missing.

Similar to the above question, the novelty of this paper is stated in the first paragraph of section Discussion. Another novelty is this paper focus on “silty”, a kind of special soil, which is scarce in the literature.

4. The results from the paper were not compared with those from the papers in the literature. In other words, benchmarking is not available in the paper. In this case, how do we decide on the adequacy/validity of the presented paper? The test experiments presented in the paper by the authors alone are not sufficient to validate the study. Moreover, the results of tests did not compare and validate with numerical analyses. 

Some results from this paper are compared with the conclusions in some literatures. For example in Line 133 Line 242. The agreement between this paper and the literature is a validation of the conclusions in this paper. Some results have been compared with numerical results by Shen Kanmin.  And the numerical analyses is on-going work of the authors.

5. The results were not discussed in detail in the text. They should debate them in more detail.

The results in each section are thought to be stated clear enough. Some comprehensive discussions are added in the last section Discussion.

6. In the Conclusions, the authors should briefly discuss the results obtained from the paper. Repeating the same things in the text, in conclusion, is unnecessary.

Agree to the comment of the reviewer. The section Conclusion has been removed and a section Discussion has been added.

7. Although the authors provided several diagrams/tables, they crowded the paper without returning helpful information. Diagrams should be more comparative and striking.

The authors think that the figures and the data in the tables are important and essential to the analysis and conclusion of the paper.

 

8. The results obtained by the paper should be compared, and the pros and cons of the proposed method should be explained in detail.

Some results from this paper are compared with the conclusions in the literatures. And the pros and cons are stated in the last section Discussion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Development and influence of pore pressure around bucket foundation in silty soil

 

A brief summary

The research works presented in the paper refer to the silty soil which is common in the seabed of eastern coastal areas of China. Authors think that the behaviours of the silty soil and the bucket foundation in it need more work. In their study, model tests of bucket foundation in silty soil were performed. Development of the excess pore water pressures in the different positions around the bucket was measured. Different loading conditions with change of horizontal cyclic load amplitude ratio, horizontal cyclic frequency, and vertical load ratio were considered. Effects of the pore water pressure on the shear strength of the soil around the bucket and the horizontal bearing capacity of the bucket foundation were investigated by the researchers.

 

Comments

Strengths of the paper:

1. Quite well laid out paper, comprehensive, clear and in terms of descriptive content and practical significance.
2. Solid with an accurate approach of modelling and methodology.
3. Results presented in a trustworthy and scientific manner.

Weakness of the paper:

1. The structure of the paper does not correspond exactly the academic structures of I-M-R-a-D publishing.
2. The subtitle of Conclusion is misleading as 4 conclusions were drawn, so they represent plural form, not a single one.
3. Discussion section is missing at all; at the end of the manuscript authors should comment their findings in a contexts of other, comparable investigations on the subject.
4. Within a Discussion section limitations and generalisations should be presents; are there any limits to presented testing and how the results of testing can be applied to the other, similar / different silty soil conditions.
5. The list of presented and recognised  references is pretty weak (19) and limited to investigations of only Asian / Chinese bibliography.

 

The overall merit of the paper is pretty good / above the average with opinion that the presented recognition on Development of pore pressure foundation in silty soil should clearly prove its novelty to the state of the art.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Weakness of the paper:

1. The structure of the paper does not correspond exactly the academic structures of I-M-R-a-D publishing.

Following the suggestions from the reviewers. The section Conclusion has been removed and a section Discussion has been added.

2. The subtitle of Conclusion is misleading as 4 conclusions were drawn, so they represent plural form, not a single one.

To avoid repeat as reviewer 3 pointed out the conclusion has been condensed in one paragraph in the last section Discussion.

 

3. Discussion section is missing at all; at the end of the manuscript authors should comment their findings in a contexts of other, comparable investigations on the subject.

A section Discussion replaces the original section Conclusion. The work in a context of others are stated in the first paragraph of this section. And the pros and cons are stated in the last paragraph.

4. Within a Discussion section limitations and generalisations should be presents; are there any limits to presented testing and how the results of testing can be applied to the other, similar / different silty soil conditions.

And the pros and cons are stated in the last paragraph. Limitation of the conclusion from this paper is pointed out. And a suggestion for the future work is mentioned.

 

5. The list of presented and recognised  references is pretty weak (19) and limited to investigations of only Asian / Chinese bibliography

More references have been added, especially by international authors. The work in some important paper are reviewed. The section Introduction has been expanded.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised paper has addressed all my previous comments. I suggest accepting the paper as it is now.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your review. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Development and influence of pore pressure around bucket foundation in silty soil

Some descriptive modifications has been inserted to the first submission, however they enhanced the article and its findings to some extant only.

To make things worse / unclear I cannot see the authors’ answers to my remarks that I address one by one.

Therefore I must sustain my appraisal that the overall merit of the paper is pretty good / above the average with opinion that the presented recognition on development of pore pressure foundation in silty soil should clearly prove (e.g. listed top 5 items) its novelty to the state of the art.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments - R2

 

Comments:

Some descriptive modifications has been inserted to the first submission, however they enhanced the article and its findings to some extant only.

To make things worse / unclear I cannot see the authors’ answers to my remarks that I address one by one.

Therefore I must sustain my appraisal that the overall merit of the paper is pretty good / above the average with opinion that the presented recognition on development of pore pressure foundation in silty soil should clearly prove (e.g. listed top 5 items) its novelty to the state of the art.

 

Response:

Some descriptive modifications have been marked in red in the previous resubmitted manuscript.

 

In the last response, we have carefully considered your remarks and responsed them one by one in Review Report (Round 1). The previous remarks and responses are shown in the next page.  

 

The novelty of this paper is added and stated in the section Discussion. “The main goal of this paper is to investigate the bearing capacity of the bucket foundation in silty soil under cyclic loading condition. It is well known that the reduction of the bearing capacity of bucket foundation may be caused by the strength degradation of the surrounding soils, which may be a consequence of the development of the pore water pressure during cyclic loading. The development of the pore water pressure due to cyclic loading, the strength degradation of the soil due to the pore water pressure accumulation, and the reduction of the bearing capacity of the bucket foundation have been analyzed extensively but separately in the literature. But these three topics have seldom been studied comprehensively and causally. This is the main concept and content of this paper.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Point 1: The structure of the paper does not correspond exactly the academic structures of I-M-R-a-D publishing.

Response 1: Following the suggestions from the reviewers. The section Conclusion has been removed and a section Discussion has been added.

Point 2: The subtitle of Conclusion is misleading as 4 conclusions were drawn, so they represent plural form, not a single one.

Response 2: To avoid repeat as reviewer 3 pointed out, the conclusion has been condensed in one paragraph in the last section Discussion.

Point 3: Discussion section is missing at all; at the end of the manuscript authors should comment their findings in a contexts of other, comparable investigations on the subject.

Response 3: A section Discussion replaces the original section Conclusion. The work in a context of others are stated in the first paragraph of this section. And the pros and cons are stated in the last paragraph.

Point 4: Within a Discussion section limitations and generalisations should be presents; are there any limits to presented testing and how the results of testing can be applied to the other, similar / different silty soil conditions.

Response 4: The pros and cons are stated in the last paragraph. Limitation of the conclusion from this paper is pointed out. And a suggestion for the future work is mentioned.

Point 5: The list of presented and recognised  references is pretty weak (19) and limited to investigations of only Asian / Chinese bibliography

Response 5: More references have been added, especially by international authors. The work in some important papers are reviewed. The section Introduction has been expanded.