Force Performance Analysis of Pile Behavior of the Lateral Load
, Assogba Ogoubi Cyriaque 3 and Diakité Youssouf 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a numerical modelling of the pile mainly subjected to lateral loads and the numerical results were evaluated by the experimental test. In addition, the authors also investigate behaviour of the pile with different diameters. Although the paper showed there is good agreement between a numerical results and field test ones, the scientific contribution of the paper is weak. More specifically
1. There is no new in defining a numerical model, e.g. selecting constitute material model, contact between the pile and soil layers and so on. The modelling strategy used in the paper have been widely published. Do the authors think the same material model can be used for different types of soils? If so, please clarify.
2. There is lack of calibration of the numerical model.
3. Major conclusions have been found in literature review and the authors failed to present novelty of their work.
4. The presentation of the paper is required intensive work to improve both layout and English writing. There are several places is difficult to follow or typos. Please some examples below:
Table 1: friction coefficient by 0.75 is quite large
p.1, l.38: 324. 86 meters should be 324.86m
p4., l.106-108: please revise
p.4, l.120: Loading on Abaqus 2017 software can be noted. ???
p.4, l.120-125: please revise
p/4, l.133: Yan song bridge@?
p.4, l.134-138: please revise
p.6, l.172: soil square?
p.9, l.235-238: please revise
Author Response
We appreciate very much the editor and the reviewers for the constructive comments. We also thank the editor and the reviewers for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Each comment has been carefully considered point by point and responded. Responses to the reviewers and changes in the revised manuscript are as follows.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the fact that it is quite long and not easy to follow - it presents an interesting solution to me. In general I can say - good job.
line 98 - fig. 2 - not 1
line 133-134 - pleae impove style,
line 144 - fig. 3
line 151 - table 1- Young's modulus 10 e6, - please improve description, I think cohesion should be presented in KPa,
line 158, 159, 160 and so on, - we start the new sentence with a capital letter,
line 167 - figure 4 is unreadable,
line 185 - please standarize the way of quoting,
line 194-196 - please improve style,
line 220 - style (this is not English),
line 223 - fig. 7a, should be min - not mn,
line 237 - (0,48%) - how it was calculated?
line 242 - (0,48%) - how it was calculated?
line 260 - fig 9a- please add legends and units, fig 9b,c,d - this is not readable - please improve
line 263, - fig 10a,b, - please explain what the red line means and what expdec2 fit of sheet1 / 2 means ...,
line 277, fig 11 not 3, 11a- paint drawings???? - unacceptable, please improve, definitely improve the quality,
line 292 - style?
line 304- fig. 12a- what does it mena - armature?, fig. 12b - please add units to strain values
line 316, 317 and 318 - please improve English, style,
line 325 - fig. 14 or fig. 15
line 334 - fig. 13, 14, 15 a,b,c,d - cm - not Cm,
line 370, 375, 378 and 381 - this is not the right way to present research results
Author Response
We appreciate very much the editor and the reviewers for the constructive comments. We also thank the editor and the reviewers for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Each comment has been carefully considered point by point and responded. Responses to the reviewers and changes in the revised manuscript are as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper studies the response of a reinforce concrete pile under lateral load to different pile diameter. The contribution of this research with respect to other papers is not clear.
Main questions:
1 Which is the main contribution of this research with respect to other papers or works? (It should be clear in the paper)
2 The authors said in the abstract “ Thus, from the study comparing the results of the FE measurements with the data measured in the field, add to the statistical analyses below, the bridge is considered to resist up to 80% for a duration of 100 years”. Where is estimated or checked in the paper that the bridge is considered to resist up to 80% for a duration of 100 years?
3 In the pag 2 line 71-74 the authors said that an objective of this study is building a survey of the codes and their requirements on pile reinforcement, but in the paper I did not find the survey and analysis of the codes and their requirements on pile reinforcement ¿ which is it?
4 In the pag 9 line 235-236 the authors said that “When the load is the maximum load 1650kN, the displacement on the field is 9.67 mm, and displacement from the FEM is 9.62 mm.” but in line 241 the author said …. the pile head displacement of the simulation was 14.79mm and the displacement of the pile head on the field was 14.74 mm…”. These measurements are different. Where and which is each measurement?
5 In the pag 12 line 275-276 Why the authors say “… that the deflection curves on the pile match closely with the field measuring…”?. The field measurements are only in the pile head. How the authors make sure that the deflection curves along the pile in the FE simulation match the deflection curves in the field test?
Other comments:
There are two figures 1. ( pag 2 and pag 3)
I think that the figure 3 ( pag 12) is figure 11
In pag 13 line 288 there are a mistake “…stress and stress…”
In pag 14 line 316 there are a mistake “…Figure 13 and Figure 13…”
One picture of the Yanchuan bridge and a map where it is I think that it will be interesting.
The English should been checked. There are several mistakes. Such as:
Pag 12 line 282 “And is the result of the lateral load showing the stress distribution on the pile reinforcement”. This sentence has not subject
Pag 17 line 367 “Then, has been generated the conclusion below following the comparison between the RCP simulation carried out by the Mohr-Coulomb model used in Abaqus, and the field measurement” This sentence has not subject
After a full stop the phrase has to start with a capital letter. There are several mistakes
Author Response
We appreciate very much the editor and the reviewers for the constructive comments. We also thank the editor and the reviewers for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Each comment has been carefully considered point by point and responded. Responses to the reviewers and changes in the revised manuscript are as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article cover the topic of the force performance analysis of pile behaviour under lateral load.
At work, the authors conducted numerical studies and showed the results of in-situ tests. The manuscript is very good in general.The topic is interesting and raises crucial issue affecting construction safety.
Some suggestions to enhance the paper quality are as follows:
1. In abstract it is reccomended to present more detail information about findings from this study, but briefly.
2. I suggest the following keywords in this order: Reinforced concrete pile, lateral load, 3d finite analysis, stress-strain behaviour
3. Line 42 'the' with capital letter.
4. Line 76 - define p-y
5. Figure 1- add the source or add 'own elaboration'.
6. Lin 120 'Loading on Abaqus 2017 software can be noted' - it does not make sense.
7. Figure 2 is unnecessary.
8. Table 1 - How/where properties showed in the table 1 were determined?
9. Lines 154-158. This sentence does not make sense. Everyone who reads this type of the article has basic knowledge about forces in piles and reinforcement. Consider to change to ' An ordinary reinforced concrete pile were analysed'.
10. Lines 159, 160 - check and change to capital letters where it is necessarily.
11. Line 165 - what kind of steel reinforcement were used? What diameters of steel bars?
12. Please add the content of the concrete mixture and steel properties.
13. Was the water pressure included in the numerical analysis? At what depth was the groundwater table?
14. Figure 9, 3 - please add the unit. Define U and U3.
15. Please number the drawing in the correct order.
Author Response
We appreciate very much the editor and the reviewers for the constructive comments. We also thank the editor and the reviewers for the effort and time put into the review of the manuscript. Each comment has been carefully considered point by point and responded. Responses to the reviewers and changes in the revised manuscript are as follows.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract should be shorter (maximum about 200 words)
