Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors thank the reviewer for their valuable time and efforts. The comments really helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is well written and interesting paper.

However, there are things that need to be corrected before publication:

First, introduction seem to be missing a paragraph or two. After reference [4], the next references are [11-13], what happened to the text referencing [5] to [10]??

Second, authors need to add a few more relevant references focused on the finned piles

for example:

https://doi.org/10.21467/proceedings.112.16

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/491/1/012051

Third, authors need to compare their work with the state of the art.

In the introduction they say” From the recent research on finned piles [11, 20–29], it was highlighted that they provide higher lateral resistance than conventional piles”, but there is no comparison with these cited papers. They need to clearly show scientific contribution of their paper and novelty of their research.

 

Author Response

Authors thank the reviewer for their valuable time and effort. The comments are encouraging and helped us improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Building periods and effective mass ratios should also be given in the article.

Author Response

Authors thank the reviewer for their valuable time and effort. The comments are encouraging and helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. The responses to the comments are included in the uploaded file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for revising the draft, and I'm happy to recommend this draft for publication.