Dear reviewer please see our following reply to commetns, also with the attacehd revised revision of paper in word and pdf format.
Reviewer 1.
The paper presents results from field tests on plate anchor, showing the increase in plate anchor capacity as strength gain and consolidation occur. The paper is very well written with clear objectives and findings, and deserves to be published with very minor changes.
I have indicated the changes below.
The paper has some formatting issues that the authors need to rectify:
These have been corrected.
We assume the reviewer is referring to Figure 4, which has been adjusted to avoid the overlapping issue.
Technical comments:
These have been added.
35 days was selected to allow for at least 90% consolidation additional etxt has been added to the paper to note this:
This duration corresponds with a dimensionless time, T = tcv/D2 = 3.4, sufficient for at least 90% consolidation (Wang et al., 2023).
The subsequent cycles were applied at periodic intervals of between 7 and 16 days, with a final monotonic load applied on day 71. These durations were selected in an attempt to generate additional excess pore pressure between day 35 and day 71, allowing for a comparison with other tests that did not include cyclic loading but that were also loaded monotonically on day 71. As these other tests are not reported in the paper we have chosen not to include this detail in the paper.
No, we dont have T-bar data at each anchor test location prior to the start of each loading phase. Whilst we understand the motivation for this, to measure the change in soil strength would require that the T-bar test be conducted at the actual anchor location with the anchor still in the soil, which would not have been possible.
We assume the reviewer is referring to Fig 3. Yes, this was a monotonic test. We have revised the paper to clarify that this is a monotonic test both in Figure 11 and in the text: Figure 11 shows the response measured in Test 11 together with that measured in a monotonic test (Test 2) that did not involve a consolidation period or any additional loading.
Reviewer 2.
This is a very good paper in a timely topic which will add to the conference. The reporting of field testing of anchors is not usual so the recommendation is to accept the paper with only some very minor (mostly editorial) suggestions.
These have been corrected.
Can the authors provide a schematic sketch of the anchor's position and its evolution during loading? this would help understanding the test configuration - considering that there is about 1/2 page of space
We have modified Figure 8 to show the anchor orientation and depth after installation and at the start of loading.
Are the days on Figure 10 correct?
The day number for the third cyclic loading was incorrect and we have fixed this.
5th International Symposium on Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics (ISFOG2025)
12 - Gravity base foundations, Drag and Plate Anchors