Effective Jet-Grouting Application for Improving the State of Deformation of Landmarks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is a case study on the analysis of slope stability improved by jet grouting using numerical method. The engineering applications of St. Nicholas gate was investigated and some results were obtained and analyzed. However, innovation of this manuscript is not significant as a scientific research. This paper is not well-structured. English of this manuscript is recommended to be improved by a native speaker. This manuscript is far from publication. The authors may refer to the following comments to improve this manuscript:

General comments

1. At first, you need to understand what is the ‘jet grouting’, i.e., 1) the mechanism of diameter forming and calculation, 2) the effect on surroundings, e.g., (Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139(12), 2060-2069. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932.); (“Analysis of single-fluid jet grouting.” Géotechnique, 2000, 50(6), 739-748.); (Geotechnique, ICE, 2017, 67(7), 621-630. DOI: 10.1680/jgeot.16.P.159.); (Acta Geotechnica, 2021, 16(1), 303-315.); (Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(7), 04016018.). Thus, you use these methods to evaluate the effect on surroundings during jet-grouting.
2. Historical and cultural heritage is stressed in Introduction and section 2, which is not relevant to the main objectives of this manuscript. These contents can be replaced by jet-grouting improved foundations and slopes.
3. What are the RocScience Slide used in this study used for? Are the results of this software previously proved in other research? If yes, more references should be added.
4. As a case study, contributions of this manuscript and what can be learned from this study as a reference, compared with existing literatures, should be stressed in end of Introduction.

Specific comments

1. For the title and line 423, ‘get-grouting’ should be ‘jet-grouting’.
2. Figures show numerical simulations are not clear. The quality of these figures should be improved. For example, Fig. 4, 5, 7.
3. Line 230-231, there is no obvious cause and effect between the use of jet grouting and the reduction of deformation of soil foundations. Why this technology is adaptable in this case should be further presented.
4. Line 257-258, the ‘complex engineering and geological structure’ are not clear. It is recommended to present geological conditions of the site together with what difficulties may encounter in engineering practice because of the geological conditions.

Technical writing

1. The abstract is very long and include too much introductive contents. Abstract should stress novelty, method, and main contributions of the research in a concise manner. Please reorganize and shorten it to be around 150 words.
2. Introduction and section 2 are wordy, and should be integrated. Irrelevant contents on heritage protection should be deleted, while more introduction of numerical simulation of jet-grout improved foundations or slopes should be added.
3. Conclusion is not well-structured. Only main contributions of this study should be stressed. Please reorganize point by point and make it clear.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.

 

REVISION 1

 

General comments

1. At first, you need to understand what is the ‘jet grouting’, i.e., 1) the mechanism of diameter forming and calculation, 2) the effect on surroundings, e.g., (Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139(12), 2060-2069. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000932.); (“Analysis of single-fluid jet grouting.” Géotechnique, 2000, 50(6), 739-748.); (Geotechnique, ICE, 2017, 67(7), 621-630. DOI:10.1680/jgeot.16.P.159.); (Acta Geotechnica, 2021, 16(1), 303-315.); (Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 142(7),04016018.). Thus, you use these methods to evaluate the effect on surroundings during jet-grouting.

Jet-grouting technology is an effective way to reduce the deformations of soil foundations. The basics of this technology are presented in a number of fundamental works, including those mentioned by you. In Section 2.2. Ways to solve the problem we analyzed the most important features of technology. But the purpose of the article is not to determine the negative effect of this technology on the environment in the ecological sense. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no need to give such data in our publication.

 

2. Historical and cultural heritage is stressed in Introduction and section 2, which is not relevant to the main objectives of this manuscript. These contents can be replaced by jet-grouting improved foundations and slopes.

Analysis of the historical and cultural heritage of Ukraine makes an opportunity to determine the core problems of its conservation. The authors did not aim for reviewing cases of applying the jet-grouting technology, which has been sufficiently developed. The purpose of the article is to apply this technology for the effective conservation of the historical and cultural heritage, in particular the foundations of historical buildings.

 

3. What are the RocScience Slide used in this study used for? Are the results of this software previously proved in other research? If yes, more references should be added.

The RocScience Slide is a specialized complex of numerical analysis of landslide hazard slopes. The application of other complexes requires the introduction of additional conditions that are absent in the RocScience Slide. Screenshots of this complex are given to demonstrate the changes in slope stability in the process of its strengthening.

 

4. As a case study, contributions of this manuscript and what can be learned from this study as a reference, compared with existing literatures, should be stressed in end of Introduction.

We thank you for the recommendation. We added the required data to the Introduction.

 

Specific comments

1. For the title and line 423, ‘get-grouting’ should be ‘jet-grouting’.

We thank you for the correction.

 

2. Figures show numerical simulations are not clear. The quality of these figures should be improved. For example, Fig. 4, 5, 7.

On these Figures, the most important elements that are readable are highlighted. All other digital data do not have a fundamental significance for analyzing the results of our scientific article.

 

3. Line 230-231, there is no obvious cause and effect between the use of jet-grouting and the reduction of deformation of soil foundations. Why this technology is adaptable in this case should be further presented.

Jet-grouting technology is an effective technology for reducing the deformation of the soil foundation. This is a well-known scientific fact, substantiated in many classic works (for example, Croce, P., Flora, A., & Modoni, G. (2014). Jet Grouting: Technology, Design and Control. Taylor & Francis Group; Flora, A., Modoni, G., Lirer, S., & Croce, P.  (2013). The diameter of single-, double-, and triple-fluid jet grouting columns: Prediction method and field trial results. Géotechnique, 63(11), 934-945; Modoni, G., Croce, P., & Mongiovì, L. (2008). Theoretical modelling of jet grouting: Closure. Géotechnique, 58(6), 533-535. And others). The application of this technology is due to the minimum dynamic impact on the foundations of the historic building (this is stated in 2.2. Ways to solve the problem).

 

4. Line 257-258, the ‘complex engineering and geological structure’ are not clear. It is recommended to present geological conditions of the site together with what difficulties may encounter in engineering practice because of the geological conditions.

Engineering and geological conditions are presented in Fig. 4 and analyzed in the "The engineering-geological structure of the landslide hazard slope consists of the following engineering-geological elements (IGE)". The complexity of these conditions is due to the presence of weak clay soils.

 

Technical writing

1. The abstract is very long and include too much introductive contents. Abstract should stress novelty, method, and main contributions of the research in a concise manner. Please reorganize and shorten it to be around 150 words.

We thank you for the recommendation. We cut the abstract to 150 words.

 

2. Introduction and section 2 are wordy, and should be integrated. Irrelevant contents on heritage protection should be deleted, while more introduction of numerical simulation of jet-grout improved foundations or slopes should be added.

We thank you for the recommendation. We reorganized the Introduction and Section 2. However, we believe that the content concerning the protection of historical heritage cannot be deleted. The task of the article is exactly justification for practical activities to protect the foundations of historical monuments. Numerical simulation in this case is not a goal, but a tool for determining the effectiveness of the proposed activities.

 

3. Conclusion is not well-structured. Only main contributions of this study should be stressed. Please reorganize point by point and make it clear.

We thank you for the recommendation. We reorganized the conclusions.

 

We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presented a numerical study on the effective jet-grouting application for improving the state of strain of the Landmark that might interest readers. I suggest that this manuscript needs to be revised before it can be considered for publication in the Journal of Buildings. My comments and suggestions are listed below.

• Line 2: the authors should change from “the state of strain” to “deformation” and this change should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.
• Lines 207-213: the literature of this study is very limited. The authors should be noted that soil-cement mixing and jet grouting technology is not a new ground improvement technique to improve the strength property of weak soils. This technique has its advantages and shortcomings that were not covered in this study. For example, weak soils after treatment using soil-cement mixing and jet grouting applications become a more brittle material, which is susceptible to deformation due to building loads and variations of seasonal groundwater level. Therefore, many researchers (Dang et al. 2016; Dang & Khabbaz 2019) proposed and studied recycled fibre reinforcement of cemented soils to transform the brittle behaviour of cemented soils to become a more ductile, strain hardening characteristic material while significantly improving the shear strength and bearing capacity soil foundations. Furthermore, numerical investigations by Dang et al. (2019) and Dang et al. (2021) indicated that application of fibre reinforced load transfer platform (FRLTP) made from fibre reinforcement of cement treated soils, which is placed on top of soil-cement columns, could effectively improve the deformation characteristics (e.g. vertical and differential settlements, lateral displacement) of soil foundations in support of buildings, highway embankments and roads. Thus, the authors are required to provide a comprehensive literature review, review the advantages and shortcomings of using soil cement columns as well as include a new ground modification using fibre reinforcement of cemented soils and soil-cement columns adopted as a sustainable and practical solution of soil foundations to support buildings and infrastructures. Readers deserve to know these.    

Dang, C.C., Dang, L.C., Khabbaz, H. & Sheng, D. 2021, 'Numerical study on deformation characteristics of fibre-reinforced load-transfer platform and columns-supported embankments', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 328-50.

Dang, L.C., Dang, C.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2019, 'Modelling of columns and fibre reinforced load transfer platform supported embankments', Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement, vol. 173, no. 4, pp. 197-215.

Dang, L.C., Fatahi, B. & Khabbaz, H. 2016, 'Behaviour of Expansive Soils Stabilized with Hydrated Lime and Bagasse Fibres', Procedia Engineering, vol. 143, pp. 658-65.

Dang, L.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2019, 'Experimental Investigation on the Compaction and Compressible Properties of Expansive Soil Reinforced with Bagasse Fibre and Lime', in J.S. McCartney & L.R. Hoyos (eds), Recent Advancements on Expansive Soils, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 64-78.

• Line 216: Figure 3 did not show enough information for assessment and its purpose is not clear? Was the soil cement column adopted to prove additional support under foundations of the walls in this case study? Why were its shape and diameter inconsistent? Wider, clearer and real photos of this case study with proper illustration and explanation should be presented for readers easy to follow.  
• Line 260: as shown in Figure 4, there is a lack of information of the slope for interpretation. The authors should present information about the thickness of each soil layer, detailed dimensions of soil profile, slope, dimension and location of the walls, foundation loading and so on. Interpretation of this numerical modelling cannot be carried out without this information.    
• Lines 284-285: what did the authors mean when mentioned “At a pressure of 0.1 MPa, the value of the relative strain of the subsidence is 0.012. The initial pressure of the subsidence is 78 kPa on average”?  What was the load under the wall foundation? How much was the difference in settlement between foundations?
• Line 300: Stability margin factor Kst should be changed to the safety factor Fs.
• Lines 317-322: why was not the Spencer method selected for this modelling? A stability calculation method incorporated both balance of moments and equilibrium forces should be used.
• Lines 334-337: why were not the effects of key design parameters of soil-cement columns such as shear strength, diameter and length and so on, investigated in this study? The authors are required to examine these important factors and present data and relevant discussion for civil designers, readers to follow.  
• Line 349: “the foundations of historic buildings of historical buildings and landmarks” should be changed to “the foundations of historic buildings and landmarks”
• Lines 381-385: the authors are required to explain why 35 drowning piles with a length of 22.0 m, a diameter of 1.02 m and a step of 1.5 m was used to improve the soil slope? Did the authors mean the drowning piles were soil-cement columns? If yes, please provide its mechanical properties used for modelling for interpretation. As a step of 1.5 m was applied for the piles, how was it modelled in this study? Where was the pile wall located from the slope or the building foundations? This information is important for proper numerical modelling but absent from the paper.

The authors should be noted that the effects of location, shear strength, diameter and length of pile/soil-cement columns, variations of groundwater levels and river water levels are very important when investigating a soil slope improved with piles/soil-cement columns as reported by many researchers (Dang & Dang 2020; Dang et al. 2022) in the literature. The authors are required to investigate these important design parameters and compared their results with the previous observations from the recent literature for civil design engineers and readers to follow.   

Dang, C.C. & Dang, L.C. 2020, 'Numerical Investigation on the Stability of Soil-Cement Columns Reinforced Riverbank', Information Technology in Geo-Engineering, eds A.G. Correia, J. Tinoco, P. Cortez & L. Lamas, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 879-88.

Dang, C.C., Dang, L.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2022, 'Predicting the Stability of Riverbank Slope Reinforced with Columns Under Various River Water Conditions', Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 513-23.

• Line 423: in Table 2, the authors are required to physical and mechanical properties of all soil layers before and after treatment with cement for interpretation of the improvement effect of soil-cement columns.   
• Lines 427-432: The authors should be noted that an increase in the strength of soil-cement columns by 1.6-4 times does not result in a similar increase in the safety factor of the soil slope, a corresponding reduction of the foundation settlement by that much level. Therefore, proper numerical modelling is required to investigate, a layout of soil-cement column supported wall/building foundations, and a numerical model of soil-cement columns supported foundations should be presented. Accordingly, numerical results and relevant discussion must be provided to prove the real effect of the soil strength on the improved deformation of the landmarks, the slope safety factor and so on.
• The model validation must be conducted to validate the results of this study.    
• In conclusion, it is very long. Hence, the authors should make it short and more succinct by providing new findings of this study.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.

 

REVISION 1

Line 2: the authors should change from “the state of strain” to “deformation” and this change should be applied consistently throughout the manuscript.

We thank you for the correction that you have made throughout the manuscript.

 

Lines 207-213: the literature of this study is very limited. The authors should be noted that soil-cement mixing and jet grouting technology is not a new ground improvement technique to improve the strength property of weak soils. This technique has its advantages and shortcomings that were not covered in this study. For example, weak soils after treatment using soil-cement mixing and jet grouting applications become a more brittle material, which is susceptible to deformation due to building loads and variations of seasonal groundwater level. Therefore, many researchers (Dang et al. 2016; Dang & Khabbaz 2019) proposed and studied recycled fibre reinforcement of cemented soils to transform the brittle behaviour of cemented soils to become a more ductile, strain hardening characteristic material while significantly improving the shear strength and bearing capacity soil foundations. Furthermore, numerical investigations by Dang et al. (2019) and Dang et al. (2021) indicated that application of fibre reinforced load transfer platform (FRLTP) made from fibre reinforcement of cement treated soils, which is placed on top of soil-cement columns, could effectively improve the deformation characteristics (e.g. vertical and differential settlements, lateral displacement) of soil foundations in support of buildings, highway embankments and roads. Thus, the authors are required to provide a comprehensive literature review, review the advantages and shortcomings of using soil cement columns as well as include a new ground modification using fibre reinforcement of cemented soils and soil-cement columns adopted as a sustainable and practical solution of soil foundations to support buildings and infrastructures. Readers deserve to know these.

Dang, C.C., Dang, L.C., Khabbaz, H. & Sheng, D. 2021, 'Numerical study on deformation characteristics of fibre-reinforced load-transfer platform and columns-supported embankments', Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 58,no. 3, pp. 328-50.

Dang, L.C., Dang, C.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2019, 'Modelling of columns and fibre reinforced load transfer platform supported embankments', Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement, vol. 173, no. 4, pp.197-215.

Dang, L.C., Fatahi, B. & Khabbaz, H. 2016, 'Behaviour of Expansive Soils Stabilized with Hydrated Lime and Bagasse Fibres', Procedia Engineering, vol. 143, pp. 658-65.

Dang, L.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2019, 'Experimental Investigation on the Compaction and Compressible Properties of Expansive Soil Reinforced with Bagasse Fibre and Lime', in J.S. McCartney & L.R. Hoyos (eds), Recent Advancements on Expansive Soils, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 64-78.

The authors of the article do not affirm the innovation of jet-grouting technology. Its basics are sufficiently developed in a number of fundamental scientific works. The effectiveness of reducing the deformations of the foundations after the application of this technology is known. Therefore, the authors’ purpose in using this technology as a tool to achieve the goal was not to determine advantages and disadvantages. Respectively, their in-depth analysis, in our opinion, is unnecessary to repeat. This technology has proven itself in Ukraine as an effective one to reduce the deformations of foundations. We thank you for your references toward the research of fiber-reinforced soil-cement. This technology in Ukraine is absent, so its introduction is new to us. We made a brief overview of citations presented by you in our article and added some titles to the reference list.

 

Line 216: Figure 3 did not show enough information for assessment and its purpose is not clear? Was the soil cement column adopted to prove additional support under foundations of the walls in this case study? Why were its shape and diameter inconsistent? Wider, clearer and real photos of this case study with proper illustration and explanation should be presented for readers easy to follow.

This column from the soil-cement is accepted for additional strengthening of the foundation at the facility (this is the author's photo from the construction site of the St. Nicholas Gate). The shape of the columns from the soil-cement due to the uneven jet action is never the same. The shape and diameter do not coincide because under the foundation there is a broadening of the column (see Fig. 8). This action is unambiguously applied in the case of drilling outside the foundation. In the case of drilling through the foundation, the form and diameter can coincide.

 

Line 260: as shown in Figure 4, there is a lack of information of the slope for interpretation. The authors should present information about the thickness of each soil layer, detailed dimensions of soil profile, slope, dimension and location of the walls, foundation loading and so on. Interpretation of this numerical modelling cannot be carried out without this information.

This slope is landslide hazard, but the landslide has not yet developed. The activities that are justified in the article are preventive ones. From geodesic research conducted in autumn 2021, it can be concluded that the proposed activities almost completely excluded the deformations of the slope and the occurrence probability of the landslide.

 

Lines 284-285: what did the authors mean when mentioned “At a pressure of 0.1 MPa, the value of the relative strain of the subsidence is 0.012. The initial pressure of the subsidence is 78 kPa on average”? What was the load under the wall foundation? How much was the difference in settlement between foundations?

This statement "At a pressure of 0.1 MPA, the value of the relative strain of the subsidence is 0.012. The initial pressure of the subsidence is 78 Kpa on average" is taken from Ukrainian Building Standards. Defining the pressure under the foundation of the historic building is difficult. While building the St. Nicholas Gate in 1846-1850 the pressure under the foundation was not defined.

 

Line 300: Stability margin factor Kst should be changed to the safety factor Fs.

We thank you for the correction that you have made throughout the manuscript.

 

Lines 317-322: why was not the Spencer method selected for this modelling? A stability calculation method incorporated both balance of moments and equilibrium forces should be used.

The Spencer method was chosen like the other four methods (see Table 1).

 

Lines 334-337: why were not the effects of key design parameters of soil-cement columns such as shear strength, diameter and length and so on, investigated in this study? The authors are required to examine these important factors and present data and relevant discussion for civil designers, readers to follow.

This scientific article was not aimed at studying the change in the geometric and strength parameters of the soil-cement. We are grateful to the reviewer for a scientific idea that can be implemented in further scientific research.

 

Line 349: “the foundations of historic buildings of historical buildings and landmarks” should be changed to “the foundations of historic buildings and landmarks”

We thank you for the correction.

 

Lines 381-385: the authors are required to explain why 35 drowning piles with a length of 22.0 m, a diameter of 1.02 m and a step of 1.5 m was used to improve the soil slope? Did the authors mean the drowning piles were soil-cement columns? If yes, please provide its mechanical properties used for modelling for interpretation. As a step of 1.5 m was applied for the piles, how was it modelled in this study? Where was the pile wall located from the slope or the building foundations? This information is important for proper numerical modelling but absent from the paper.

The authors should be noted that the effects of location, shear strength, diameter and length of pile/soil-cement columns, variations of groundwater levels and river water levels are very important when investigating a soil slope improved with piles/soil-cement columns as reported by many researchers (Dang & Dang 2020; Dang et al. 2022) in the literature. The authors are required to investigate these important design parameters and compared their results with the previous observations from the recent literature for civil design engineers and readers to follow.

Dang, C.C. & Dang, L.C. 2020, 'Numerical Investigation on the Stability of Soil-Cement Columns Reinforced Riverbank', Information Technology in Geo-Engineering, eds A.G. Correia, J. Tinoco, P. Cortez & L. Lamas, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 879-88.

Dang, C.C., Dang, L.C. & Khabbaz, H. 2022, 'Predicting the Stability of Riverbank Slope Reinforced with Columns Under Various River Water Conditions', Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 513-23.

Drowning piles were soil-cement columns. The layout chart was determined by the project that did not imply the performance of optimization calculations. The mechanical properties of the soil-cement columns are given in 4.3. Patterns of strain and strength indicators of soil-cement. Step 1.5 m was not displayed in a model that is flat. The application of a flat model is correct in the case of data of engineering and geological conditions. They are represented by layers located at a low angle. We are grateful to the reviewer for citations and we included them in the reference list.

 

Line 423: in Table 2, the authors are required to physical and mechanical properties of all soil layers before and after treatment with cement for interpretation of the improvement effect of soil-cement columns.

Physical and mechanical properties for the most part of the soils are given in Table 2.

 

Lines 427-432: The authors should be noted that an increase in the strength of soil-cement columns by 1.6-4 times does not result in a similar increase in the safety factor of the soil slope, a corresponding reduction of the foundation settlement by that much level. Therefore, proper numerical modelling is required to investigate, a layout of soil-cement column supported wall/building foundations, and a numerical model of soil-cement columns supported foundations should be presented. Accordingly, numerical results and relevant discussion must be provided to prove the real effect of the soil strength on the improved deformation of the landmarks, the slope safety factor and so on.

The model validation must be conducted to validate the results of this study.

In conclusion, it is very long. Hence, the authors should make it short and more succinct by providing new findings of this study.

The authors understand that increase in the strength of soil-cement columns by 1.6-4 times does not result in a similar increase in the safety factor of the soil slope. To determine the increase in the stability of the slope and reduce the deformations of the soils, numerical simulation was carried out, the results of which are set out in 4.1. Results of evaluating the landslide hazard slope stability.

Conclusions are reduced.

 

We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer believes that this manuscript will be worthy of acceptance as the authors respond to the following comments by the reviewer.

(1) The authors should articulate the improvement mechanism (principle of improvement) for jet-grouting.
(2) The authors should mention the reliability of the analysis on landslide hazard slope stability. That is, the degree of discrepancy between the analysis result and the actual phenomenon should be shown.
(3) The authors have adopted the uniaxial compression test in the practical solution to the problem of improving the state of strain, but reviewers believe that the triaxial compression test should be adopted.
(4) The authors should discuss this point further, although the minimum and maximum strength of soil-cement deviate greatly in Figure 10.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3

 

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions. Below please find the detailed modifications we have made to the revised manuscript to address comments. The modifications made are explained below in a step-by-step fashion along with the rationale used for each modification.

 

REVISION 1

(1) The authors should articulate the improvement mechanism (principle of improvement) for jet-grouting.

The mechanism of the action of jet-grouting is described in detail in a number of fundamental works (for example, Croce, P., Flora, A., & Modoni, G. (2014). Jet Grouting: Technology, Design and Control. Taylor & Francis Group; Flora, A., Modoni, G., Lirer, S., & Croce, P. (2013). The diameter of single-, double-, and triple-fluid jet grouting columns: Prediction method and field trial results. Géotechnique, 63(11), 934-945; Modoni, G., Croce, P., & Mongiovì, L. (2008). The essence of the scientific article is the practical application of jet-grouting to strengthen the soil foundation of the historic building. Therefore, repeating the bases of the jet-grouting method is inappropriate.

 

(2) The authors should mention the reliability of the analysis on landslide hazard slope stability. That is, the degree of discrepancy between the analysis result and the actual phenomenon should be shown.

Since activities on the increase in stability of the landslide hazard slope are completely finished in summer 2021, there is currently no detailed information on its deformation. From the geodesic research conducted in autumn 2021, it can be concluded that the proposed activities almost completely excluded deformations of the slope.

 

(3) The authors have adopted the uniaxial compression test in the practical solution to the problem of improving the state of strain, but reviewers believe that the triaxial compression test should be adopted.

It is known that triaxial tests are carried out for the conditions in which the lateral pressure is significant. The length of amplifier elements (up to 20 m) indicates that the lateral pressure of clay rocks is insignificant. At the same time, the soil-cement strength (see Fig. 9) is within 10 ... 15 MPa, which is approaching the values of cement strength. Accordingly, the tests for uniaxial compression are correct.

 

(4) The authors should discuss this point further, although the minimum and maximum strength of soil-cement deviate greatly in Figure 10.

The soil-cement strength is affected by a number of parameters, which is quite difficult to take into account (sudden change in humidity, the presence of macropores in clay soil, possible errors in the practical application of the technology). It is these parameters that lead to the fact that the minimum and maximum soil-cement strength is changed even within the same construction site.

 

We incorporated your suggestions into the paper. We thank you for your constructive comments that helped us to improve the paper and hope that we have addressed them satisfactorily.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

OK

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1 (Round2)

 

 

The authors thank the reviewer for the helpful comments done during the reviewing process. They also thank him for understanding the paper proposal.

 

February 24^th, 2022.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not address the reviewer's comments properly. It is noted that the present form of this manuscript is presented as a simple project report without innovative contributions, while a research paper requires significant innovation and contributions with extensive research data, model validation, comprehensive discussion and comparison with previous observation documented in the literature. The authors should also be noted that the reviewer has spent a lot of time in review and provided comments to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript. Therefore, the authors are required to majorly revise the original manuscript by addressing point to point of the reviewer's comments. Then, it should be resubmitted for further review. Otherwise, the reviewer cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in this highly prestigious journal because of lack of innovative contributions, technical errors, numerical modelling without proper validation with previously published data, results obtained from closed-form solutions and without comparison with previous investigations.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2 (Round2)

 

 

We are very grateful to the Reviewer for dedicating his time reviewing the paper and giving valuable comments on our article. In the following, we kindly responded to them.

 

Reviewer’ comments:

 

The authors did not address the reviewer's comments properly. It is noted that the present form of this manuscript is presented as a simple project report without innovative contributions, while a research paper requires significant innovation and contributions with extensive research data, model validation, comprehensive discussion and comparison with previous observation documented in the literature. The authors should also be noted that the reviewer has spent a lot of time in review and provided comments to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript. Therefore, the authors are required to majorly revise the original manuscript by addressing point to point of the reviewer's comments. Then, it should be resubmitted for further review. Otherwise, the reviewer cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in this highly prestigious journal because of lack of innovative contributions, technical errors, numerical modelling without proper validation with previously published data, results obtained from closed-form solutions, and without comparison with previous investigations.

 

Authors’ response:

 

We are very grateful for the work you have performed. We thank you that you have dedicated your time reviewing our article. However, we would like to highlight some author's grounds that (we hope) will clear up our viewpoint.

Having analyzed the title of the special issue “Preservation and Study of Modern and Historic Buildings: A Synergistic Relationship” and appeal from the guest editor Dr. Kyriakos Lampropoulos, we knowingly submitted the manuscript exactly to this special issue. We believe that our manuscript, where we consistently outlined all stages in the protection of the historical building, fully corresponds to the topic of the special issue. An important thing in our work is that the combination of conducted stages (engineering examination, development of decisions, its substantiation from the position of the slope stability, application of jet-grouting technology for strengthening) is in line with the concept “A Synergistic Relationship”.

We underline once again, that the authors of the article do not affirm the innovation of jet-grouting technology. We successfully apply technology to save the foundations of historic buildings and landmarks and share this experience. This is fully coincident with a theme of the special issue (we are citing: «As a result, historic buildings and structures, which form part of our cultural heritage, are often perceived to be a “burden” to society, a link to our past that needs to be preserved at significant cost and effort. Nevertheless, historic buildings have incorporated materials and technological solutions that need to be studied, as they can offer insights and know how that can be applied to modern buildings and infrastructure to enhance their sustainability and reduce their environmental impact. In turn, modern materials and technologies that are utilized in contemporary construction can be adapted for the preservation of historic buildings»).

From our viewpoint, this manuscript is the completed scientific work, in which a positive experience in applying jet-grouting is outlined to conserve the important historical monument in Ukraine. We believe that we have achieved the purpose in the scientific work, namely provided with scientific data upon the protection of St. Nicholas Gate. Since this building is unique, then the verification of numerical simulation with previously published data is impossible due to the fact that our work is a pioneer one.

The achievement of this purpose does not require the mandatory application of innovative technology. We have data on the slurry compositions and characteristics of jet-grouting technology. But we believe that their discussion does not have a relation to the theme of the manuscript and would be not fully correct to do it since it is of the form of “innovation for the sake of innovation”. Verification of results outlined in our manuscript is confirmed by reality itself since currently, deformations are not observed at St. Nicholas Gate.

 

February 24^th, 2022.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer was able to confirm that the authors were appropriately revising to the reviewer's comments.
Therefore, the reviewer will determine that this revised manuscript is worthy of acceptance.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3 (Round2)

 

 

The authors thank the reviewer for the helpful comments done during the reviewing process. They also thank him for understanding the paper proposal.

 

February 24^th, 2022.

 

Sincerely, Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx