Dear Authors, can you please consider the following prior to proceeding with acceptance of your paper?
- The manuscript should be checked for language editing and typos, if possible from a professional.See, e.g., "modulo" instead of "modulus" (twice on page 13), the full-stop after (Pisano, 2019) (line 37), the spelling of Pisano in the reference list (Pisanò is the right spelling).
- Although well-known in the geotechnical community, the Hardening Soil model should be accompanied by a relevant reference. Recapping - briefly - the main features/capability of the model would also be useful, for instance to explain how it differs from the simpler Mohr-Coulomb (perfectly plastic) model.
- The reviewer does not agree with the new sentence "The PISA project (Byrne et al. 2019) highlights that additional soil reaction curves components (distributed moment, horizontal base force and base moment) are needed in conjunction with the p-y curves in order to have a more accurate soil structure interaction behaviour. For the present case study, the only use of the p-y curve extracted from FE is considered satisfactory". The importance of additional soil reaction components is largely driven by the aspect ratio (L/D) of the pile. As such there is no reason to believe that such components will become less relevant in the transition from monotonic to cyclic loading. In my view, neglecting "a priori" some reaction components in the analysis of short monopiles can only be justified "for the sake of simplicity".