A Novel Method for Testing the Effect of Base Post-Grouting of Super-Long Piles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made a good attempt to understand the " A novel method for testing the effect of base post-grouting of super-long piles", however, a few comments are mentioned below:
1. Existing kinds of literature are missing
2. Research gap is missing
3. Introduction and history of pile grouting are missing
4. Objective should be well defined
5. Author should give a proper justification for Figure 1. Site schematic diagram. Why he selected 3 number of pile and his significance
6. In all the figures discussion is missing
7. Author should validated the results with existing literatures
8. Conclusion should be refined
9. Application part is missing.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the Authors propose two new investigating methods to evaluate the effects of post-grouting treatments in super-long piles. The experimental results obtained by means of these two new techniques are discussed and compared.
The paper is very concise and its scientific contribution seems weak. As much as it may be helpful in foundation engineering application studies.
More precisely, it is not clear if the main content of the manuscript is represented by the new testing methods or by the evaluation of the effects of grouting treatments in long piles. In this framework, in the reviewer’s opinion, the introduction and the conclusions of the paper should be carefully revised. Moreover, the reference list of the manuscript should be improved to take into account of other important papers related to the evaluation of the bearing capacity of super-long piles.
Finally, the second part of the abstract should be improved: Authors cannot introduce the experimental results for piles No.1 and No.2 without declaring what is the difference between them.
According to what said above, in the reviewer’s opinion the manuscript can be considered for publication only after the described major revisions.
Author Response
Please refer to the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Ok
Reviewer 2 Report
After having carefully read this last version of the manuscript, it can be said that the original paper has been correctly amended and improved by the Authors, providing adequate answers and addressing all the emerging issues.
The manuscript is interesting and fits well with the aim of the "Applied Sciences" Journal. Therefore, the opinion of this reviewer is that it can be published in its current form.
