Lateral Load Capacity and p-Multiplier of Group Piles with Asymmetrical Pile Cap under Seismic Load
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 121: pm is too small
Line 153: The number of the formula is wrong, and the following is also wrong. Please check all the number of formulas.
Line 202: No materials is used in this FEM study.
Line 230 to 236 : Figure 4 and Figure 5 can be re-organized and merged. The words “Study site” and “study point” should be reconsidered.
Line 292: Table 2 and Table 3 should be merged. Table 4 and Table5 should also be merged.
Line 421: pm should be pm
Line 447: This sentence should be removed. The conclusion should be reconsidered. Some of the present conclusions are not concluded from the research in this manuscript.
Line 180-201: Formulas 15-24 should be reconsidered how to describe. A table is recommended to make the comparison clear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope this email finds you well. I have made the requested changes and uploaded a revised Author Version.
Please kindly find the attached revised file.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript investigated the lateral load capacity and p-multiplier of group pile due to earthquake based on analytical and numerical comparative analysis. As for the innovation of this paper, the reviewer does not think there are enough highlights in this work to support this paper as a research paper, for the numerical analysis, there is no further novelty method proposed. The readers in the field may guess the conclusions of this manuscript without reading the paper. Generally, the manuscript is not well organized, and is not acceptable in the current status.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief,
I hope this email finds you well. I have made the requested changes and uploaded a revised Author Version.
Please kindly find the attached revised file.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. For the case of group piles, the input value is the total load combination of earthquake loads and soil pressure on the semi-basement wall for lateral loading. Please give the time history and frequency spectrum of several conditions of earthquake acceleration. The lateral earth pressure distribution along the semi-basement wall for lateral loading also needs to be shown in section 2.2.
2. The shape description of pile and pile cap is not clear, and each point load’s coordinates adjusting from the detailed pile cap drawing should be marked clearly in Figuer7.
3.For lateral loads analysis, the axial load is set to inactivation, and not considered. Please explain the reasons for not considering the axial load, and give the actual axial load values in section 3.1.2.
4. How to determine the friction between the structural element and the soil (Rinter) in the design of calculation parameter for the simulation. How to determine the reduction coefficient of each layer of soil, so as to reduce the cohesion and shear angles in the interface. Please give a detailed explanation. Give an equation about the Rinter value if necessary.
5. In 4.1, “This is consistent with Wang et al. [33] that the flexural stiffness of the pile will slightly increase the ultimate soil resistance.” The contribution value of concrete pile modulus to horizontal bearing resistance is not given. It is not convenient to compare the contribution value of pile stiffness to soil resistance. We want to know the specific correspondences between the pile stiffness and deflection rate and lateral capacity in numerical quantification.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief,
I hope this email finds you well. I have made the requested changes and uploaded a revised Author Version.
Please kindly find the attached revised file.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The presented article deals with the topic of earthquake loading and analysing the performance of a group of piles. The introduction clearly introduces the topic and the used methods. The experimental programme with the results is presented well. The comparison to previous studies using various methods is also good. Therefore, I would recommend only minor revisions. My specific comments are:
Line 53. What is SW?
Line 58. What is p-y curve?
Throughout the article, all variables in equations should be explained.
In general, all abreviations and variables should be explained when they are first mentioned.
Table 3's caption could mention that it is a continuation of Table 2.
Line 411. Many studies are mentioned, but only one reference is provided.
Line 447. Repeated sentence.
The first paragraph of the Conclusions section is slightly confusing. Perhaps some words are missing?
In Abstract, it isn't clear if the 3D or 2D method is appropriate. I would understand it that 2D is, but Conclusions say that 2D is less reasonable.
Minor proofreading and English check could be done.
Author Response
Dear Editor in Chief,
I hope this email finds you well. I have made the requested changes and uploaded a revised Author Version.
Please kindly find the attached revised file.
Thank you for your kind cooperation.
With best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
accept
Reviewer 2 Report
I I still adhere to my original comments.Although the asymmetrical pile cap and pile configurations with numerical analysis was conducted, the innovation was still not well presented. There is no further novelty method proposed for the numerical analysis. Generally, the manuscript is not well organized, and is not acceptable in the current status.
Reviewer 3 Report
All the questions in my comments have been well revised, and I agree to publish the paper.
