Analysis of the Liquefaction Potential at the Base of the San Marcos Dam (Cayambe, Ecuador)—A Validation in the Use of the Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The paper lacks innovation.
2. The HVSR method was used to identify the vicinity of P-8A as a liquefaction-prone zone, and P-7A, P-9A and P-10A as non-liquefaction-prone zones, and the SPT data from P-8A were used to verify that this site is a liquefaction-prone zone.The SPT test results for P-7A, P-9A, and P-10A, which could potentially be judged to be liquefiable zones, are not shown, and the SPT data for P-8A alone do not validate the accuracy of the HVSR results in delineating liquefiable zones.
3. The abstract is not concise, and the description of the research tests and reservoir environment could be reduced.
4. The description in the text is too far from the accompanying figures.
5. (336-338) combines the two equations to determine liquefaction potential. Eq. (3) is calculated from Eq. (2), and can be expressed as calculating GSS through Eq. (3) to determine the liquefaction potential.
6. (489-496) In Table 4, the HVSR used in the paper can be put into the table to compare with the three commonly used methods, thus reflecting the characteristics of the method used in this paper.
Author Response
The answers have been made in the attached file.
Kind regards:
Javi
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is relevant in that it provides an example of the application of a set of geophysical methods to assess the potential for soil liquefaction at the base of a dam, as a large engineering structure located near an active volcano with seismic activity.
At the same time, it should be noted that in a scientific article it is necessary to avoid the style of a technical report on the work done. Therefore, it is proposed to rework the text, aimed at eliminating, if possible, a large number of abbreviations without the necessary explanation.
It is also obvious that the illustrations - drawings and tables - need to be improved. The inscriptions and numbers in the drawings need to be enlarged. All abbreviations need to be explained in the notes to the tables or in the column headings.
I also consider it unacceptable to use an abbreviation in the title of a scientific article.
Notes with specific comments are made in the manuscript, which I am attaching.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The answers have been made in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The innovative nature of this paper can be emphasised in the discussion section.
2. This paper validates the accuracy of the HVSR results at the San Marcos dam. A brief description of the applicability of the method to other sites can be included in the discussion section
Author Response
The answers have been made in the attached file.
Kind regards:
Javi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors!
I recommend the title of the article “Analysis of the liquefaction potential at the San Marcos dam basement (Cayambe, Ecuador). A validation in the use of the seismic technique Horizontal-to-Vertical Spectral Ratio».
It is also necessary to eliminate any existing deficiencies in the manuscript's design.
The inscriptions on both inserts to Figure 1 are still illegible. I suggest making corrections so that the inscriptions are legible.
Figure 2 – the location of this cross-section is not indicated in Figure 1; the location of the geographic feature San Marcos Valley is not shown in Fig. 1. The color of the lines indicating the boreholes is gray (not black, as written in the caption): it needs to be brought into line.
The abbreviation of the name of the organization GADPP (L156) in the text should be deciphered and this name given in English.
Figure 4. The caption under the figure must be brought into line with the terminology in the text and with the images in the figure.«… drill-holes (in red crossed dots)..»: replace with «boreholes (green circles)». HVSR numbers for points 16 and 18 are illegibly signed.
L302 – you need to provide a link to Fig. 4.
L401 – «borehole»
L453 – «…and the Ambraseys relation [38] between Mw and epicentral distance» add «..epicentral distance Re in km»
I was unable to obtain full access to the paper [9] to assess the novelty of the peer-reviewed work compared to [9]. The novelty of this work should be defined more clearly.
Best wishes!
Author Response
The answers have been made in the attached file.
Kind regards:
Javi
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
