Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the authors

The present study, entitled “Research on Bearing Capacity of Damaged Jacket Repaired by Grouting Clamp” investigates the strength of damaged pile pipes and the efficiency of the repairing intervention using grouting clamps. The paper provides an interesting analytical analysis for the assessment of the strength of a jacket repaired by grouting clamp. In addition, the efficiency of the clamping system is assessed by means of an experimental study. The paper shows interesting results in both its parts, however, there is not a clear link between them. Moreover, the experimental study needs to be presented in a clearer way both in the description of the test set up and in the discussion of the results (that should be enlarged). In the reviewer’s opinion, the article cannot be published in form it is now. The reviewer provides as follow few suggestions to improve the quality of the study and make it ready for the publication.

The introduction provides a comprehensive state of the art concerning the problem of the assessment of strengthening of grouting connections in steel pipes. The lack in knowledge in literature concerning such topic, and the novelty of the study are summarised in the sentence : “At present, no one has summarized the bearing capacity of the damaged steel pipe pile and the structure strengthened by grouting hoop”. In the Reviewer’s opinion a more detailed explanation of the novelty of the paper would improve its quality.

Please, specify all the terms showed within the equations through the text: e.g. equation 1, specify the meaning of the terms ω, Px, Py…, E, t. Moreover, please specify how the rigidity U is defined.

Lines 69 – 71: If I well understood the meaning is that the minimum value of the stress (in the equation 3) represents the critical stress, hence by imposing equal to zero the derivative of equation 3 it is possible to define the value of b that satisfy the assumption. Please rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.

Equation 5: please specify the meaning of the coefficient μ (Please, do it through for all the equations of the paper, perhaps a list of symbols may help).

Line 87: “the force is equivalent to…?”, please, revise the sentence.

Lines 94-95: please specify the boundary conditions.

Line 111: “steel pipe is calculated”, please, revise the sentence.

Line 129: please, specify the origin of Equation 14 (equilibrium equation of the stress over the cross-section).

Lines 152 – 158: please, add a scheme of the grouting hoop over the pipe. It would make more understandable the meaning of outer and inner radius in Equation 18.

Line 154: “the outer clamp is filled with cement”, what do you mean for “cement”? Cement based mortar? Concrete? Please, specify.

Line 158: “mpa”, please change with MPa.

Figure 7: Please, contextualise better the scheme. Is the FN the same of Figure 2?

Line 179: “M2 is not different from M2”, please revise.

Figure 8: Please, contextualise better the scheme. (Try to make evident from which part of the global scheme the section has been taken. Same for Fig. 7).

With respect to the Experimental activity, a clear scheme is needed to describe specimen sizes and test set up (specifying loading and boundary conditions).

Lines 203 -204: “the grouting hoop engineering application is reduced in equal proportion”, please, specify the size of the specimen and the number of samples tested.

Lines 206-208: Please clarify better the load conditions (Perhaps with a scheme).

Figure 12: Consider if all the showed information is necessary. I would rather insert a clearer scheme of the steel pipe and grouting clamp tested to make the experimental study clearer.

Figure 13: was the only steel pipe tested? Or the entire grouting clamp (with concrete/cement)? Please specify.

Lines 221-222: Please, rephrase.

Line 229: how possibly strain gauges 10-13 can “simulate” the defect? Please, provide a clearer and wider explanation.

Line 139: “the following table”, it is a graph/curve/diagram/figure, definitely not a table.

Line 240: “;”, substitute with “.”.

Figures 15 and 16: why the two graphs were not plotted with the same y axis? Moreover, specify better through the text the variable at the y axis (normally stress should be expressed in MPa, not in kN; strains have no dimension (or expressed in %), and not expressed in MPa). Please, revise.

Lines 248 – 255: In this paragraph the discussion of the experimental result is shown. The discussion is too poor and does not give an exhaustive explanation of the experimental results.  The influence of the clamping system should be better quantified (in place of “significantly greater” would be better to introduce a reduction or increase of the value in percentage with respect to the ideal pipe case). Moreover, why stress values are not compared with the material strength? Finally, the two parts of the paper (analytical and experimental approaches) appear completely disconnected each other. In order to justify and prove the correctness of the proposed analytical equations, a comparison of the experimental results with the theoretical equations, should be provided.

As a general comment concerning the experimental part, it should be completely revised by clarifying: the number and types of tests, the geometry and type of specimen, the number of samples, the test set up; by providing an exhaustive discussion of the results; and by correlate the experimental results with the proposed analytical analysis.  

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 1 (jmse995902)

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #1:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: The introduction provides a comprehensive state of the art concerning the problem of the assessment of strengthening of grouting connections in steel pipes. The lack in knowledge in literature concerning such topic, and the novelty of the study are summarised in the sentence : “At present, no one has summarized the bearing capacity of the damaged steel pipe pile and the structure strengthened by grouting hoop”. In the Reviewer’s opinion a more detailed explanation of the novelty of the paper would improve its quality.

Responses to 1: According to the suggestions, increased the number of documents and supplemented the novelty of the article and the main research content.

• Opinion 2: Please, specify all the terms showed within the equations through the text: e.g. equation 1, specify the meaning of the terms ω, Px, Py…, E, t. Moreover, please specify how the rigidity U is defined.

Responses to 2: As shown in line 88-90 and line 100-101, specified all the terms in the original text as suggested.

• Opinion 3: Lines 69 – 71: If I well understood the meaning is that the minimum value of the stress (in the equation 3) represents the critical stress, hence by imposing equal to zero the derivative of equation 3 it is possible to define the value of b that satisfy the assumption. Please rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.

Responses to 3: As shown in line 103-105, rephrased the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 4: Equation 5: please specify the meaning of the coefficient μ (Please, do it through for all the equations of the paper, perhaps a list of symbols may help).

Responses to 4: As shown in line 89, specified the meaning of the coefficient μ in the original text.

• Opinion 5: Line 87: “the force is equivalent to…?”, please, revise the sentence.

Responses to 5: As shown in line 122-123, revised the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 6: Lines 94-95: please specify the boundary conditions.

Responses to 6: As shown in line 1294-130, specified the boundary conditions.

• Opinion 7: Line 111: “steel pipe is calculated”, please, revise the sentence.

Responses to 7: As shown in line 145-146, revised the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 8: Line 129: please, specify the origin of Equation 14 (equilibrium equation of the stress over the cross-section).

Responses to 8: As shown in line 163, specified the origin of Equation 14.

• Opinion 9: Lines 152 – 158: please, add a scheme of the grouting hoop over the pipe. It would make more understandable the meaning of outer and inner radius in Equation 18.

Responses to 9: As shown in line 189-192, added a picture that can indicate the meaning of outer and inner radius in Equation 18.

• Opinion 10: Line 154: “the outer clamp is filled with cement”, what do you mean for “cement”? Cement based mortar? Concrete? Please, specify.

Responses to 10: The annular space between the light pipe and the outer clamp was filled with expansive high pressure cement. It was used for pipeline repair and increased its bearing capacity.

• Opinion 11: Line 158: “mpa”, please change with MPa.

Responses to 11: As shown in line 196, revised the unit in the original text.

• Opinion 12: Figure 7: Please, contextualise better the scheme. Is the FN the same of Figure 2?

Responses to 12: As shown in line 213-218, added a three-dimensional model diagram of the grouting clamp to contextualise better the scheme. Two FNs represented the same force.

• Opinion 13: Line 179: “M2 is not different from M2”, please revise.

Responses to 13: As shown in line 223, the former was modified to M₁.

• Opinion 14: Figure 8: Please, contextualise better the scheme. (Try to make evident from which part of the global scheme the section has been taken. Same for Fig. 7).

Responses to 14: As shown in line 224-225, added a three-dimensional model diagram of the grouting clamp to contextualise better the scheme.

• Opinion 15: With respect to the Experimental activity, a clear scheme is needed to describe specimen sizes and test set up (specifying loading and boundary conditions). Lines 203 -204: “the grouting hoop engineering application is reduced in equal proportion”, please, specify the size of the specimen and the number of samples tested.

Responses to 15: As shown in line 250-253, added the size of steel pipe and grouting clamp as suggested. They are the subjects in this experiment.

• Opinion 16: Lines 206-208: Please clarify better the load conditions (Perhaps with a scheme).

Responses to 16: As shown in line 268-271 and line 272-281, The screw jack provided the axial force on the steel pipe and the slippage force on the clamp, and the vehicle jack provided the radial force on the steel pipe and the clamp. The jack force range used in the experiment was 0 ~ 10t, so the maximum axial load and radial load applied to the grouting clamp were both close to 10kN.

• Opinion 17: Figure 12: Consider if all the showed information is necessary. I would rather insert a clearer scheme of the steel pipe and grouting clamp tested to make the experimental study clearer.

Responses to 17: As shown in line 268-289, I kept Figure 14 which contains all the devices used and added Figure 15 which showed three types of steel pipe and Figure 16 which showed grout mechanical clamps as suggested.

• Opinion 18: Figure 13: was the only steel pipe tested? Or the entire grouting clamp (with concrete/cement)? Please specify.

Responses to 18: As shown in line 268-289, the experiment process was explained in detail. In this experiment, three kinds of steel pipes were tested, namely, non-defective steel pipes, steel pipes with 20mm diameter defect holes, and steel pipes with 35mm diameter defect holes. Then the defective steel pipes were installed with grouting mechanical clamps and tested, and finally five sets of experiments were conducted.

• Opinion 19: Lines 221-222: Please, rephrase.

Responses to 19: As shown in line 287-289, rephrased the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 20: Line 229: how possibly strain gauges 10-13 can “simulate” the defect? Please, provide a clearer and wider explanation.

Responses to 20: As shown in line 293-294, revised the sentence in the original text. In this test, the strain values measured at strain gauges 10, 11, 12, and 13 are selected as the analysis data.

• Opinion 21: Line 239: “the following table”, it is a graph/curve/diagram/figure, definitely not a table.

Responses to 21: This sentence was deleted, so it is not needed to modify.

• Opinion 22: Line 240: “;”, substitute with “.”.

Responses to 22: This sentence was deleted, so it is not needed to modify.

• Opinion 23: Figures 15 and 16: why the two graphs were not plotted with the same y axis? Moreover, specify better through the text the variable at the y axis (normally stress should be expressed in MPa, not in kN; strains have no dimension (or expressed in %), and not expressed in MPa). Please, revise.

Responses to 23: As shown in line 303-305, 313-315unified the y-axis variables and modified the dimension of stress in those figures (Figures 19 and 20).

• Opinion 24: Lines 248 – 255: In this paragraph the discussion of the experimental result is shown. The discussion is too poor and does not give an exhaustive explanation of the experimental results.  The influence of the clamping system should be better quantified (in place of “significantly greater” would be better to introduce a reduction or increase of the value in percentage with respect to the ideal pipe case). Moreover, why stress values are not compared with the material strength? Finally, the two parts of the paper (analytical and experimental approaches) appear completely disconnected each other. In order to justify and prove the correctness of the proposed analytical equations, a comparison of the experimental results with the theoretical equations, should be provided. As a general comment concerning the experimental part, it should be completely revised by clarifying: the number and types of tests, the geometry and type of specimen, the number of samples, the test set up; by providing an exhaustive discussion of the results; and by correlate the experimental results with the proposed analytical analysis.  

Responses to 24: According to this opinion, the article has been comprehensively revised. Among them, the title, abstract, introduction, research content and conclusion are modified. See the red font for details.

The Conclusion had been modified that in this paper, the bearing capacity of jacket before and after damage was analyzed, and then the bearing capacity of damaged jacket strengthened by mechanical grouting clamp was analyzed. These analyses were made under the condition of axial and radial loads, and the results obtained were more convincing and closer to the actual working conditions than those under the single direction load. Then, the bearing capacity of damaged jacket and ideal jacket before and after hoop reinforcement were compared, and it was concluded that mechanical clamp can increase the bearing capacity by 35%. Finally, through the data comparison results obtained from the experiment, the results show that the surface defects will have a negative impact on the safety performance of the steel pipe, and the mechanical grouting clamp can effectively strengthen the damaged jacket and enhance the strength.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.13.2020

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled “Research on Bearing Capacity of Damaged Jacket Repaired by Grouting Clamp” analyzes the bearing capacity of damaged steel pipe pile strengthened by grouting hoop, and compares it with the bearing capacity of steel pipe pile under ideal condition, and finds that the reinforcement effect meets the design requirements. Finally, the damaged steel pipe piles and the steel pipe piles strengthened by grouting clamps are tested.

COMMENTS:

Some editing of the English language and style is required.

The Abstract should be better written and not repeat the same words.

The Keywords should be “Keywords” and not big phrases.

Figure 16: in the vertical axis the units should be MPa (and not Mpa).

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 1 (jmse995902)

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #1:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: The introduction provides a comprehensive state of the art concerning the problem of the assessment of strengthening of grouting connections in steel pipes. The lack in knowledge in literature concerning such topic, and the novelty of the study are summarised in the sentence : “At present, no one has summarized the bearing capacity of the damaged steel pipe pile and the structure strengthened by grouting hoop”. In the Reviewer’s opinion a more detailed explanation of the novelty of the paper would improve its quality.

Responses to 1: According to the suggestions, increased the number of documents and supplemented the novelty of the article and the main research content.

• Opinion 2: Please, specify all the terms showed within the equations through the text: e.g. equation 1, specify the meaning of the terms ω, Px, Py…, E, t. Moreover, please specify how the rigidity U is defined.

Responses to 2: As shown in line 88-90 and line 100-101, specified all the terms in the original text as suggested.

• Opinion 3: Lines 69 – 71: If I well understood the meaning is that the minimum value of the stress (in the equation 3) represents the critical stress, hence by imposing equal to zero the derivative of equation 3 it is possible to define the value of b that satisfy the assumption. Please rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.

Responses to 3: As shown in line 103-105, rephrased the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 4: Equation 5: please specify the meaning of the coefficient μ (Please, do it through for all the equations of the paper, perhaps a list of symbols may help).

Responses to 4: As shown in line 89, specified the meaning of the coefficient μ in the original text.

• Opinion 5: Line 87: “the force is equivalent to…?”, please, revise the sentence.

Responses to 5: As shown in line 122-123, revised the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 6: Lines 94-95: please specify the boundary conditions.

Responses to 6: As shown in line 1294-130, specified the boundary conditions.

• Opinion 7: Line 111: “steel pipe is calculated”, please, revise the sentence.

Responses to 7: As shown in line 145-146, revised the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 8: Line 129: please, specify the origin of Equation 14 (equilibrium equation of the stress over the cross-section).

Responses to 8: As shown in line 163, specified the origin of Equation 14.

• Opinion 9: Lines 152 – 158: please, add a scheme of the grouting hoop over the pipe. It would make more understandable the meaning of outer and inner radius in Equation 18.

Responses to 9: As shown in line 189-192, added a picture that can indicate the meaning of outer and inner radius in Equation 18.

• Opinion 10: Line 154: “the outer clamp is filled with cement”, what do you mean for “cement”? Cement based mortar? Concrete? Please, specify.

Responses to 10: The annular space between the light pipe and the outer clamp was filled with expansive high pressure cement. It was used for pipeline repair and increased its bearing capacity.

• Opinion 11: Line 158: “mpa”, please change with MPa.

Responses to 11: As shown in line 196, revised the unit in the original text.

• Opinion 12: Figure 7: Please, contextualise better the scheme. Is the FN the same of Figure 2?

Responses to 12: As shown in line 213-218, added a three-dimensional model diagram of the grouting clamp to contextualise better the scheme. Two FNs represented the same force.

• Opinion 13: Line 179: “M2 is not different from M2”, please revise.

Responses to 13: As shown in line 223, the former was modified to M₁.

• Opinion 14: Figure 8: Please, contextualise better the scheme. (Try to make evident from which part of the global scheme the section has been taken. Same for Fig. 7).

Responses to 14: As shown in line 224-225, added a three-dimensional model diagram of the grouting clamp to contextualise better the scheme.

• Opinion 15: With respect to the Experimental activity, a clear scheme is needed to describe specimen sizes and test set up (specifying loading and boundary conditions). Lines 203 -204: “the grouting hoop engineering application is reduced in equal proportion”, please, specify the size of the specimen and the number of samples tested.

Responses to 15: As shown in line 250-253, added the size of steel pipe and grouting clamp as suggested. They are the subjects in this experiment.

• Opinion 16: Lines 206-208: Please clarify better the load conditions (Perhaps with a scheme).

Responses to 16: As shown in line 268-271 and line 272-281, The screw jack provided the axial force on the steel pipe and the slippage force on the clamp, and the vehicle jack provided the radial force on the steel pipe and the clamp. The jack force range used in the experiment was 0 ~ 10t, so the maximum axial load and radial load applied to the grouting clamp were both close to 10kN.

• Opinion 17: Figure 12: Consider if all the showed information is necessary. I would rather insert a clearer scheme of the steel pipe and grouting clamp tested to make the experimental study clearer.

Responses to 17: As shown in line 268-289, I kept Figure 14 which contains all the devices used and added Figure 15 which showed three types of steel pipe and Figure 16 which showed grout mechanical clamps as suggested.

• Opinion 18: Figure 13: was the only steel pipe tested? Or the entire grouting clamp (with concrete/cement)? Please specify.

Responses to 18: As shown in line 268-289, the experiment process was explained in detail. In this experiment, three kinds of steel pipes were tested, namely, non-defective steel pipes, steel pipes with 20mm diameter defect holes, and steel pipes with 35mm diameter defect holes. Then the defective steel pipes were installed with grouting mechanical clamps and tested, and finally five sets of experiments were conducted.

• Opinion 19: Lines 221-222: Please, rephrase.

Responses to 19: As shown in line 287-289, rephrased the sentence in the original text.

• Opinion 20: Line 229: how possibly strain gauges 10-13 can “simulate” the defect? Please, provide a clearer and wider explanation.

Responses to 20: As shown in line 293-294, revised the sentence in the original text. In this test, the strain values measured at strain gauges 10, 11, 12, and 13 are selected as the analysis data.

• Opinion 21: Line 239: “the following table”, it is a graph/curve/diagram/figure, definitely not a table.

Responses to 21: This sentence was deleted, so it is not needed to modify.

• Opinion 22: Line 240: “;”, substitute with “.”.

Responses to 22: This sentence was deleted, so it is not needed to modify.

• Opinion 23: Figures 15 and 16: why the two graphs were not plotted with the same y axis? Moreover, specify better through the text the variable at the y axis (normally stress should be expressed in MPa, not in kN; strains have no dimension (or expressed in %), and not expressed in MPa). Please, revise.

Responses to 23: As shown in line 303-305, 313-315unified the y-axis variables and modified the dimension of stress in those figures (Figures 19 and 20).

• Opinion 24: Lines 248 – 255: In this paragraph the discussion of the experimental result is shown. The discussion is too poor and does not give an exhaustive explanation of the experimental results.  The influence of the clamping system should be better quantified (in place of “significantly greater” would be better to introduce a reduction or increase of the value in percentage with respect to the ideal pipe case). Moreover, why stress values are not compared with the material strength? Finally, the two parts of the paper (analytical and experimental approaches) appear completely disconnected each other. In order to justify and prove the correctness of the proposed analytical equations, a comparison of the experimental results with the theoretical equations, should be provided. As a general comment concerning the experimental part, it should be completely revised by clarifying: the number and types of tests, the geometry and type of specimen, the number of samples, the test set up; by providing an exhaustive discussion of the results; and by correlate the experimental results with the proposed analytical analysis.  

Responses to 24: According to this opinion, the article has been comprehensively revised. Among them, the title, abstract, introduction, research content and conclusion are modified. See the red font for details.

The Conclusion had been modified that in this paper, the bearing capacity of jacket before and after damage was analyzed, and then the bearing capacity of damaged jacket strengthened by mechanical grouting clamp was analyzed. These analyses were made under the condition of axial and radial loads, and the results obtained were more convincing and closer to the actual working conditions than those under the single direction load. Then, the bearing capacity of damaged jacket and ideal jacket before and after hoop reinforcement were compared, and it was concluded that mechanical clamp can increase the bearing capacity by 35%. Finally, through the data comparison results obtained from the experiment, the results show that the surface defects will have a negative impact on the safety performance of the steel pipe, and the mechanical grouting clamp can effectively strengthen the damaged jacket and enhance the strength.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.13.2020

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of this paper is of important and fits very well into the scope of the journal. Following comments must be included before it can be accepted for publication.

Proper revision of the introduction, results and discussion and conclusion should be done.

 Introduction:

1) The important drawn conclusions were unclear from their literature review. The key outcome of the reviewed papers were not discussed properly.

2) The summary of the present work was not explained at the end of the introduction. Authors must include the summary and highlights of their work in the revised manuscript.

Results and discussion:

1) The results were not properly discussed and written. It is expected to include more results and discussion in the revised copy.

2)  The provision of clamp must be having some drawbacks which can transfer the load to the components of the structure. Please comment.

Conclusion:

The section must be re-written and highlight their key outcome from the present study.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 3 (jmse995902)

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #3:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: Introduction:
• The important drawn conclusions were unclear from their literature review. The key outcome of the reviewed papers were not discussed properly.

Responses to 1 : According to this opinion, the article has been comprehensively revised. Among them, the title, abstract, introduction, research content and conclusion were modified. See the red font for details. The revised article can make the literature review clear, the research content clear, the experimental data credible, the modified conclusion can also echo the research content, please review again.

2) The summary of the present work was not explained at the end of the introduction. Authors must include the summary and highlights of their work in the revised manuscript.

Responses to 1: According to the line 75-80, modified the content of this part. Summarized the novelty of this article and reflected the work content of the research.

• Opinion 2: Results and discussion:

1) The results were not properly discussed and written. It is expected to include more results and discussion in the revised copy.

2)  The provision of clamp must be having some drawbacks which can transfer the load to the components of the structure. Please comment.

Responses to 2: 1) the results were rewritten and discussed further.

2) Although the clamping block can cause damage to the jacket surface, the reviewer's concern is completely correct. However, the damage caused by the block on the jacket surface is local plastic deformation, which will not affect the overall strength of the jacket. At the same time, the effective bearing capacity can be improved due to the plastic deformation caused by the block embedded in the jacket surface. Therefore, it is feasible to improve the overall strength of jacket by local plastic deformation damage. See the line 321-326.

• Opinion 3: Conclusion:

The section must be re-written and highlight their key outcome from the present study.

Responses to 3: Re-edited the conclusions and got the research results in line with the content.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.13.2020

Reviewer 4 Report

Please find attached a PDF file with my comments and suggestions for authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 4 (jmse995902)

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #4:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: Firstly, in relation to the introduction section, in my opinion the state‐of‐art review included here should be improved, including a higher number of references cited (the current 10 references cited is a low number). In addition to this, in my opinion the purpose and the novelty of the research included in the paper should be clearly explained in this section. I suggest to enlarge the final paragraph of the introduction section (lines 54‐55) with a explicit description of the objectives and the innovation of this work.

Responses to 1: According to the introduction section, added 8 references and modified the content of this part. According to the line 75-80, summarized the novelty of this article and reflected the work content of the research.

• Opinion 2: With respect to the section 4, the results regarding the mechanical experiment verification of grouting clamp are very well described. However, I think that the discussion of results should be improved here, because I can see hardly discussion here. References must be cited in this section.

Responses to 2: The results were rewritten and discussed further and a reference was added here.

• Opinion 3: Regarding the conclusion section, I think that the most important findings of the manuscripts should be summarized and highlighted using the bullet points must be summarized. This would make clearer the relevant findings of the research included in the manuscript.

Responses to 3: Re-edited the conclusions and got the research results in line with the content.

• Opinion 4: As a general comment, the English language of the text of the manuscript needs an improvement. I suggest to revise it by a native English speaker.

Responses to 4: Improved English language expression as suggested. If there is no content problem in the revised article, we will entrust the editor of this journal to edit the grammar and sentence pattern of the article.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.13.2020

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer's concerns have been addressed by the authors to a satisfactory level. The present form of the paper is only acceptable only after the sentence corrections and grammar checks are done. The following minor corrections also should be included. 

Line 20: Change “can effectively strengthen and strengthen…” to “can effectively strengthen the local jacket members”

Line 33: Change “In the past 20 years” to “In the past two decades”

Line 75: remove “will” such as “this paper proposes a new…”

Line 80: Change the sentence as: “Finally, the effect of mechanical grouting clamp to strengthen the jacket members was verified by experiments.”

Line 163: Change “Take the center…” to “Consider the center…”

Line 268: Change “This experiment…” to “Experiment was conducted mainly to know the …. ”

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 3 (jmse995902)

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #3:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: Line 20: Change “can effectively strengthen and strengthen…” to “can effectively strengthen the local jacket members”.

Responses to 1: As shown in line 20, changed the sentence as suggested.

• Opinion 2: Line 33: Change “In the past 20 years” to “In the past two decades”.

Responses to 2: As shown in line 32, changed the sentence as suggested.

• Opinion 3: Line 75: remove “will” such as “this paper proposes a new…”.

Responses to 3: As shown in line 74-75, removed the word “will” as suggested.

• Opinion 4: Line 80: Change the sentence as: “Finally, the effect of mechanical grouting clamp to strengthen the jacket members was verified by experiments.”

Responses to 4: As shown in line 78-79, changed the sentence as suggested.

• Opinion 5: Line 163: Change “Take the center…” to “Consider the center…”

Responses to 5: As shown in line 162, changed the sentence as suggested.

• Opinion 6: Line 268: Change “This experiment…” to “Experiment was conducted mainly to know the …. ”

Responses to 6: As shown in line 267, changed the sentence as suggested.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.20.2020

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

My comments and suggestions have been fulfilled.

Regarding the English language revision, the authors have indicated that they will entrust the editor of this journal to edit the grammar and sentence pattern of the article. In my opinion, this solution is adequate.

Finally, I congratulate the authors for their work and I think that the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According you’re your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.

To Reviewer #4:

Specific issues

• Opinion 1: Regarding the English language revision, the authors have indicated that they will entrust the editor of this journal to edit the grammar and sentence pattern of the article. In my opinion, this solution is adequate.

Responses to 1: Regarding the English language revision, we will entrust the editor of this journal to edit the grammar and sentence pattern of the article.

************************************************

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Bo Zhang

Corresponding author:

Zhuo Wang

Eail: [email protected]

Nov.20.2020