Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyzed the  behavior of suction pile under monotonic horizontal loading. This research could be interesting for the researcher and engineers involved in construction methods and failure mechanism. The paper analyzed the sets of experimental results, which could be valuable for future research. In my opinion, the paper could be published in your journal and only MINOR REVISION is needed.

Comments

1. Please try to explain better the novelty of your research, experiments with different loading conditions....
2. The section about experiments is well written and easy to repeat and understand. Please, explain why your results could be useful for other researchers.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I attach the summarized responses to reviewers. We hope we responded the reviewer's comments properly.

Sincerely,

Jinung Do 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper present experimental results for the lateral resistance of monopiles/suction piles embedded in sand soil. The paper is well written and structures, and the results can be very interesting for the potential readers of Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. Thus, publication is recommended after some minor details are addressed:

1. For better understand the experimental setup, the authors are encouraged to give details about the specific models of the different equipment used to conduct the experiments. In the current version, only the manufacturer is indicated.
2. Did the authors have a real application reference for setting the geometrical dimensions (diameter, length and thickness) of the studied pile?
3. Figure 4. The labels “x” and “y” seem to be swapped.
4. Line 187. Please, indicate the direction of the vertical component of the inclined load (alfa>0).
5. Line 210 (or 154). Please, indicate when was the cone penetration test conducted. This reviewer assumes that it is performed after the waiting time (2 h) after installing the pile and before the horizontal load excitation.
6. In lines 272-273 it is stated that: “The δ includes all mechanically measured horizontal displacements within the system, whereas x is the pure horizontal displacement of the pile cap measured via PIV analysis”. How is the horizontal displacement δ measured? Please, clearly indicate this procedure in Section 2.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I attach the summarized responses to reviewers. We hope we responded the reviewer's comments properly.

Sincerely,

Jinung Do 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer comments

• Some grammatical mistakes required corrections. The paper is required to be proofread.
• Revise the title, the title is too long and is not specific.
• Improve the literature as well the introduction, add some more recent similar studies.
• Avoid repetition of some sentences. Some sentences are repeated in the abstract as well as in the introduction. Line 65, 66, etc…
• Provide objective and need of this studies based on the literature and contamprory issues.
• A flowchart of the study showing different steps would be beneficial for the readers if added to this paper's introduction.
• I suggest changing the suction pile with the word suction
• The experimental activity is the small scale I think…line 69.
• Can you correlate the horizontal load values and positions to real scenarios and some real values instead used in the experimental based on wave height etc?
• For easy referencing, provide a notation table as indexed to the manuscript.
• The caption of Figure 8 is not clear. (a), (b), (c)….
• Figure 3 together with photographs a drawing with dimensions will also be useful. Also correct tooths with teeth,
• In addition to Figure 1, Show some pictures of the experimental set-up as well. Showing the complete prototype is also required.
• The word “noose-like wire,” does not seem appropriate, try to find a suitable word, maybe a noose knot, etc…
• Provide missing references such as Joomunjin standard…
• Please mention the contribution of this research to the subject also what is the scope of this research and future research.
• Some analytics may be useful to compare with the obtained results to see the validity of the experimental activity.
• Also calibration part is missing in this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

I attach the summarized responses to reviewers. We hope we responded the reviewer's comments properly.

Sincerely,

Jinung Do 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

A thorough overview of the paper will be useful prior to the final publishing.