Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an investigation on grouted clamps using experimental methods. Overall, the field is of interest to the readership of the journal however, the manuscript requires significant modifications before publication and several points need to be addressed by the authors:

My main comments are summarised below:

Major comments

• The authors must revise the language of the manuscript significantly to adhere with academic writing. For example: Line 14 (Abstract) "Finally, the press was used...." The fact that a hydraulic actuator or some kind of load application machinery was used is not relevant. The authors should focus on the type of loading instead.
• Line 17: What is an anti-falling experiment.
• Citations do not adhere to scientific writing. For example: Line 36 "In the 1980s, Professor Elnashai A.S from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in England conducted a pressure grouting clamp mechanics experiment". The above does not include a citation and includes unnecessary information about the academic institution of the author. Instead you should provide information on the work that was carried out by the author.
• Similarly Line 46, 47 etc. Please cite the literature according to academic norms. 
• The authors have missed significant part of the literature and are advised to revise their list of references. For example significant work on grouted members is missed. Indicatively just to mention a few:

1. Dallyn, P., El-Hamalawi, A., Palmeri, A. and Knight, R., 2015, August. Experimental testing of grouted connections for offshore substructures: A critical review.  Structures (Vol. 3, pp. 90-108). Elsevier.

2. Dallyn, P., El-Hamalawi, A., Palmeri, A. and Knight, R., 2016. Experimental investigation on the development of wear in grouted connections for offshore wind turbine generators. Engineering Structures, 113, pp.89-102.

3. Tziavos, N.I., Hemida, H., Dirar, S., Papaelias, M., Metje, N. and Baniotopoulos, C., 2020. Structural health monitoring of grouted connections for offshore wind turbines by means of acoustic emission: An experimental study. Renewable Energy, 147, pp.130-140.

4. Tziavos, N.I., Hemida, H., Metje, N. and Baniotopoulos, C., 2019. Non-linear finite element analysis of grouted connections for offshore monopile wind turbines. Ocean Engineering, 171, pp.633-645.

5. Lamport, W.B., Jirsa, J.O. and Yura, J.A., 1991. Strength and behavior of grouted pile-to-sleeve connections. Journal of Structural Engineering, 117(8), pp.2477-2498.

• The authors are summarising some papers without  identifying gaps in the literature.
• There are many grammar mistakes which alter the meaning of several sentences. E.g. : "Then determine the wave force and current force of the grouting clamp." The clamp does not have any current and wave force.
• The readability of the manuscript must be significantly improved.
• Increase the fonts within the figures (e.g., figure 10, 11, 13, 15 etc.)

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 1 (jmse803906)

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:

Main issues

• Opinion 1: The authors must revise the language of the manuscript significantly to adhere with academic writing. For example: Line 14 (Abstract) "Finally, the press was used...." The fact that a hydraulic actuator or some kind of load application machinery was used is not relevant. The authors should focus on the type of loading instead.

Responses to 1: The article was modified, the press was changed to a specific loading form of screw jacks and vehicle jacks, and other relevant positions of the article were also modified.

• Opinion 2: Line 17:What is an anti-falling experiment.

Responses to 2: This problem is inaccurate translation. It is not an "anti-fall experiment " but an " preventing the clamp from falling off experiment ", which has been revised in the original text.

• Opinion 3: Citations do not adhere to scientific writing. For example: Line 36 "In the 1980s, Professor Elnashai A.S from the Imperial College of Science and Technology in England conducted a pressure grouting clamp mechanics experiment". The above does not include a citation and includes unnecessary information about the academic institution of the author. Instead you should provide information on the work that was carried out by the author. Similarly Line 46, 47 etc. Please cite the literature according to academic norms.

Responses to 3: Relevant amendments have been made to the citations of non-standard references in the original text.

• Opinion 4: The authors have missed significant part of the literature and are advised to revise their list of references. For example significant work on grouted members is missed. Indicatively just to mention a few:.

Responses to 4: Nine references were added to the grouting construction, and the original text was revised.

• Opinion 5: The authors are summarising some papers without  identifying gaps in the literature.

Responses to 5: The references in the original text have been revised.

• Opinion 6: There are many grammar mistakes which alter the meaning of several sentences. E.g. : "Then determine the wave force and current force of the grouting clamp." The clamp does not have any current and wave force.

Responses to 6: The original text has been re-translated.

• Opinion 7: The readability of the manuscript must be significantly improved.

Responses to 7: The original text has been re-translated.

• Opinion 8:Increase the fonts within the figures (e.g., figure 10, 11, 13, 15 etc.).

Responses to 8: The size of the font size in the pictures in the article has all been modified.

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

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; Email: wangzhuo_heu@hrbeu.edu.cn

May.29.2020

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have put some effort and has applied the Morison method to calculate the combined wave and current load interaction on a cylindrical grouted clamp of a jacket structure and conducted some experimental test. 

the wave and current load has not been correctly calculated, at least the velocity of water particle should be correctly produced and used in the Morison formula.

The design environmental condition should be a realistic value and correctly defined. 3m Hs can not penetrate sufficiently in the considered water depth.  

the relation between the experiment and numerical analysis can not be easily observed. 

The language of the text in many locations is note a common technical phrase. 

The experiment results at least should be used to either verify the numerical results or bring a new insight into the problem. 

Regards

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 2 (jmse803906)

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 #2:

Main issues

• Opinion 1: the wave and current load has not been correctly calculated, at least the velocity of water particle should be correctly produced and used in the Morison formula.

Responses to 1: A section 2.1 has been added to the original text, which is to calculate the velocity and acceleration of water particles.

• Opinion 2: The design environmental condition should be a realistic value and correctly defined. 3m Hs can not penetrate sufficiently in the considered water depth.

Responses to 2: This opinion has been explained in section 2.2.2.

• Opinion 3: the relation between the experiment and numerical analysis can not be easily observed.

Responses to 3: For the numerical analysis carried out first in this article, it is mainly to calculate the maximum axial and radial forces that the clamp will experience at sea. In the course of the experiment, under the conditions of the laboratory, no force corresponding to the result of the numerical analysis was applied, but by applying a force smaller than the value of the numerical analysis, it was indirectly verified by analogy and the rationality of this design structure.

• Opinion 4: The language of the text in many locations is note a common technical phrase.

Responses to 4: The language in which the original translation is not suitable has been revised.

• Opinion 5: The experiment results at least should be used to either verify the numerical results or bring a new insight into the problem.

Responses to 5: This article mainly verifies the rationality of its structure through several experiments. Numerical analysis calculates the magnitude of the force received in the actual environment. In this paper, the experiment is conducted by applying a force smaller than the numerical analysis to verify that the structure is reasonable. By analogy, if the force applied by the relevant experiment is increased, the force in the actual environment can be achieved, which indirectly verifies the rationality of the structure design.

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

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; Email: wangzhuo_heu@hrbeu.edu.cn

May.29.2020

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for your paper which is interesting to read. However, I have just a few comments:

The structure of the paper is quite confusing. The section 2.2, for instance, should be moved within section 3. Anyway, the title of the subsection should be modified. I suggest that a section "Methods" is added after the introduction. Then a "Results" section could be added.

Line 30; Line 72: “ at home and abroad “ Forgive me, but I do not feel that this expression should be accepted. Where is home? I mean, it seems Authors are referring to a Chinese reader and this is misplaced if the Journal has an international audience.

Please, check if Fig. 3 is correct.

Try to differentiate the caption for Fig. 3 and 6.

Try to differentiate the caption for Fig. 4 and 7.

Line 121, Line 182. Please, for Subsubsection text style apply the JMSE template. The same for tables, equations, bulleted lists .

Line 156. In this paper… Authors should explain if they are referencing to a case study or the dimensional parameters are fanciful.

Line 265. The reference is missing ( Maietta DM et al.)

Line 267. The reference is missing (Polycarpou et al.)

Line 272. “Simpson method in MATLAB”. Please, try to provide a brief introduction to the Simpson Method, also addressing some references.

It is not clear the correlation between a lot of information provided in section 2 with the experimental analysis presented in the paper. Please, focus on the experimental campaign and results. The discussion appears, in my point of view, rather weak with no major outcomes on “hydrodynamic” of Grouting Clamp. Even in the Abstract some phrases are somehow unclear and confusing.

Line 372: Next Step 2 will improve the  force application mode on the basis of wedge self-locking, so as to increase the equivalent friction coefficient. This sentence is enigmatic and misleading.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewer 3(jmse803906)

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:

Main issues

• Opinion 1: The structure of the paper is quite confusing. The section 2.2, for instance, should be moved within section 3. Anyway, the title of the subsection should be modified. I suggest that a section "Methods" is added after the introduction. Then a "Results" section could be added.

Responses to 1: The chapters in the text have been revised.

• Opinion 2: Line 30; Line 72: “ at home and abroad “Forgive me, but I do not feel that this expression should be accepted. Where is home? I mean, it seems Authors are referring to a Chinese reader and this is misplaced if the Journal has an international audience.
• Responses to 2: Such a statement in the original text is indeed not conducive to readers from all over the world. The expression of “domestic and international” in the original text has been revised, the expression of “domestic and international” has been replaced by “countries of the world”, and the expression of “domestic” has been replaced by “China”.
• Opinion 3: Pleace, check if Fig. 3 is correct.

Responses to 3: Figure 3 in the original text has been modified.

• Opinion 4: Try to differentiate the caption for Fig. 3 and 6. Try to differentiate the caption for Fig. 4 and 7.

Responses to 4: In the original text, the titles of these four pictures have been modified for Figure 3 and Figure 6, Figure 4 and Figure 7. Figure 3 and Figure 4 are the force analysis diagram of the clamp on the vertical steel pipe. Figure 6 and Figure 7 is the force analysis diagram of the clamp on the horizontal steel pipe.

• Opinion 5: Line 121, Line 182. Please, for Subsubsection text style apply the JMSE template. The same for tables, equations, bulleted lists.

Responses to 5: The format of lines 121 and 182 in the original text has been adjusted to JMSE format.

• Opinion 6: Line 156. In this paper… Authors should explain if they are referencing to a case study or the dimensional parameters are fanciful.

Responses to 6: These two parameters are set by oneself according to actual experience. These two parameters have been marked after the original text.

• Opinion 7: Line 265. The reference is missing ( Maietta DM et al.)

Line 267. The reference is missing (Polycarpou et al.)

Responses to 7: References in the original text have been added.

• Opinion 8:Line 272. “Simpson method in MATLAB”. Please, try to provide a brief introduction to the Simpson Method, also addressing some references

Responses to 8: The Simpson's formula of matlab programming used in this article is not very important, so the calculation process is not reflected in the original text.

• Opinion 9: It is not clear the correlation between a lot of information provided in section 2 with the experimental analysis presented in the paper. Please, focus on the experimental campaign and results. The discussion appears, in my point of view, rather weak with no major outcomes on “hydrodynamic” of Grouting Clamp. Even in the Abstract some phrases are somehow unclear and confusing.

Responses to 9: This article first analyzes and calculates the wave force and current force that the clamp receives in the sea, and obtains the maximum value it receives. Then conduct the experiment under laboratory conditions, the applied force is less than the numerically analyzed force, but in this experiment, by analogy, if the same force as the numerically analyzed force is applied, the rationality of the structure of the design can be verified. And the relevant part of the original text has been revised.

• Opinion 10: Line 372: Next Step 2 will improve the force application mode on the basis of wedge self-locking, so as to increase the equivalent friction coefficient. This sentence is enigmatic and misleading.

Responses to 10: The original meaning of this sentence is: In the future, other methods of applying force to this structure may be able to obtain better experimental data. This sentence is indeed easy to cause misunderstanding by readers, and has been deleted in the original text.

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

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; Email: wangzhuo_heu@hrbeu.edu.cn

May.29.2020

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment to authors