Method for Prevention of Liquefaction Caused by Earthquakes Using Grouting Applicable to Existing Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents an experimental study of using grouting to mitigate the subsidence of structures caused by the liquefaction of loose sand. The following should be considered:

 

Some major problems:

1. Line 210: gap water pressure ratio not defined before.

2. Line 214: Separation Distance not properly defined and explained.

3. Subsidence is a more proper word other than sedimentation, which is used a lot in the paper because the study is studying the vertical displacement.

4. Line 290-292. What is the evidence of these discussions?

 

Some editing and grammar issues:

Line 9: Ground liquefaction is causing very great damage…, do not need VERY here.

Line 31: People -> Researchers or Engineers

Line 31: the number of earthquakes increases annually worldwide. source?

Line 132: the size of the acrylic [soil layer] was W 800 × D 400 × H 700 mm

Line 139: sand is scattered. Do you mean pour?

Fig.3 What does EP mean?

Line 150: water was used in the same manner as 1000 g. Cannot understand this.

Line 159-161: hard to understand, please rephrase.

Fig.4. The magnitude is 0.5g in the figure, but 0.6g in the text.

 

Line 227: polar-> pore

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, effects of mixing ratio of grouting chemical and separation distance between the injection point and the structure on reducing liquefaction damage were analyzed, which is an important topic. Language is good and experiments within the manuscript were designed appropriately. Considering the contribution to advance in knowledge, I would suggest to accept this manuscript after revising major problems as follows:

·       L.44-74: Thanks for authors’ time and efforts spent on literature review but this section looks superficial. Please show more incisive findings, for example, key factors within these studies or important results regarding data.

·       Some recent and more related liquefaction references should be added in the section Introduction, for example:

 

Duan, W., Congress, S. S. C., Cai, G., Liu, S., Dong, X., Chen, R., & Liu, X. (2021). A hybrid GMDH neural network and logistic regression framework for state parameter–based liquefaction evaluation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 99(999), 1801-1811.

·       L.206-271: Please avoid repetition. Each section within these lines used the same description and exhibited figures in same style.  In this case, why not plot all of these curves in one figure and discuss it in one paragraph? I would suggest improving each section by showing different findings from each other, for example, different patterns for figures (especially for pore water ratio) can be obtained and what caused these differences? What is the macroscopic difference between each specimen?

·       Section 3.5: Regarding comparison section, I would suggest to separate the two factors (mixing ratio and distance) rather than plotting all the curves in one figure simply (Fig.15). Therefore, describe and analyze relationships between displacement and mixing ratio/distance respectively. Relationships between pore water pressure ratio and these two factors are required as well.

·       Improve discussion section: I believe there is a gap between results and conclusions and thus a discussion section is required. Please compare your findings with previous researchers’ carefully, support your statements by citing previous studies, and illustrate your findings more. Otherwise, this manuscript looks superficial remaining in result level.

·       Equation between settlement and mixing ratio in Fig.16 is good, but what is the importance of it for researchers? If this method can be used for estimating settlement with a reasonable accuracy? Further discussion is highly suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe this is a really interesting topic and authors interpreted results soundly, which will contribute to advance in knowledge. I would suggest to publish this paper after refining some minor problems are as follows:

As I said, the research in this paper focuses on liquefaction. Therefore, more references on liquefaction should be cited, which is very beneficial to the publication of this paper or the publicity of this journal, such as:

1)      Seed, H. B., & Idriss, I. M. (1971). Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations division, 97(9), 1249-1273.

2)      Duan, W., Congress, S. S. C., Cai, G., Liu, S., Dong, X., Chen, R., & Liu, X. (2021). A hybrid GMDH neural network and logistic regression framework for state parameter–based liquefaction evaluation. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 99(999), 1801-1811.

3)      Hasheminezhad, A., Farzalizadeh, R., Rahimi, H., & Bahadori, H. (2022). Seismic performance assessment of wall-type gravel and rubber drains in liquefaction mitigation of sands. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-16.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf