Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Ali Silahtar 1,*,
  • Hasan Karaaslan 1 and
  • Kadir Kocaman 2

Reviewer 1: Danqing Song Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled "Site characterization and liquefaction hazard assessment for the Erenler settlement area (Sakarya province, Turkey) based on integrated SPT-Vs data" by Ali Silahtar et al. is focused on an interesting topic. This paper comprehensively uses geotechnical and geophysical methods to study the liquefaction risk of the region through 40 surface wave measurements and 52 geotechnical drillings for two scenarios, 1999 İzmit (Mw:7.4) and 1967 Mudurnu (Mw:7.0), LPIISH maps are constructed for the study area. All these maps were demonstrated in the GIS environment. The means used in this study are reasonable and necessary, with several outcomes obtained. I suggest that this paper can be accepted after major revision. However, there are still some issues that should be clarified and complemented before publication. 1. Abstract should be brief and concise. The innovation and main research results of this work should be fully displayed. 2. LPIISH or LPIISH in abstract? Please check carefully. 3. The second part of the article “Geologic And Tectonic Features” need to be more detailed ?Whether it is necessary to explain the typical situation of Quaternary impact rock under two earthquake scenarios? 4. Could you explain me the reason PL curve only takes 5%, 50% and 95% ? 5. When checking the influence of surface damage, whether LPIISH index is consistent with IB index, and whether the accuracy is different. 6. Whether it can be displayed on GIS through FS and LPIISH to form a regional liquefaction risk assessment system. 7. Major problem with this paper is that it requires substantial editing in English usage. Some words are missing or sentences are not complete or difficult to understand.

Author Response

  • REVİEWER #1:

 

  1. Abstract should be brief and concise. The innovation and main research results of this work should be fully displayed.

Answer:

The necessary changes have been made about the abstract and are shown in bold green in the manuscript.

  1. LPIISH or LPIISH in abstract? Please check carefully.

Answer:

In all parts of the manuscript (including the abstract) LPIISH has been changed to LPIISH.

 

  1. The second part of the article “Geologic And Tectonic Features” need to be more detailed ? Whether it is necessary to explain the typical situation of Quaternary impact rock under two earthquake scenarios?

Answer:

The necessary changes have been made under Part 2 "Geological and Tectonic Features" and are shown in bold green in the manuscript.

  1. Could you explain me the reason PL curve only takes 5%, 50% and 95% ?

Answer:

Probabilistic liquefaction curves were plotted for probabilities of 5, 20, 50, 80 and 95% as given in Çetin et al. (2018). However, 5%, 50% and 95% curves were selected to prevent the curves from overlapping and complicating the graph. It was also determined that the most appropriate probability curve for the data was 50%.

  1. When checking the influence of surface damage, whether LPIISH index is consistent with IB index, and whether the accuracy is different.

Answer:

The following section has been added to the manuscript. Changes are shown in bold and green style.

 

“In other words, the potential of liquefaction surface effects was predicted by LPIISH at the points where ground damage is expected to occur with IB. However, liquefaction expectation results differed at 8 locations in the Izmit scenario and 5 locations in the Mudurnu scenario. While liquefaction-induced ground damage is expected with IB curve in boreholes 21, 24, 31, and 33 for the Izmit scenario and 7, 32, 35, and 50 for the Mudurnu scenario, no surface damage is expected with LPIISH at these locations. This difference is caused by the high thickness of the non-liquefiable overburden (H1>6). Another difference is that liquefaction damage is predicted by LPIISH but not by the IB curve in some boreholes. According to LPIISH analysis, liquefaction-induced surface effect is expected at drilling points 11, 12, 23, 28, and 38 in the Izmit and 9 in the Mudurnu scenarios. At the same time, the IB curve determined that there would be no surface deformation. The differentiation here is because the thickness of the liquefiable layer (H1) is very thin, and the cap soil (H2).”

  1. Whether it can be displayed on GIS through FS and LPIISH to form a regional liquefaction risk assessment system.   

Answer:

In the study, all of the methods used in the regional liquefaction risk distribution maps are a function of the safety number (FS) against liquefaction. As the dear reviewer will know, the concept of FS is included in these methods. In addition, in the LPIISH method, in order to determine the probability of surface impact due to liquefaction, the change of FS with depth as well as the effects of liquefying and non-liquefying layers on each other are taken into consideration. It was considered that performing a liquefaction risk assessment based only on the FS would not be accurate since the FS takes different values with depth and cannot provide a solution that represents the entire soil profile.

  1. Major problem with this paper is that it requires substantial editing in English usage. Some words are missing or sentences are not complete or difficult to understand.

Answer:

The necessary English edits have been made throughout the manuscript, taking into account the criticism of the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors focus on the liquefaction hazard assessment for the Erenler settlement area. This work is interesting. The paper is well organized. I would like to suggest some changes before the publication of the paper. First, the innovation should be emphasized throughout the paper. Second, all the figures and tables do not have the titles. Third, the means of the variables of the equations should be introduced.

Overall, the manuscript addresses an interesting problem and should deserve attention; however, further review is expected.

Author Response

  • REVİEWER #2:

 

 

  1. First, the innovation should be emphasized throughout the paper.

Answer:

The innovative aspect of the research has been emphasized with following sentences:

In abstract: “In addition, the evaluation of liquefaction with many approaches in two different bases within the scope of the study constitutes a novelty for the study area and liquefaction analyses.” 

In introduction: “Thus, an innovative liquefaction assessment based on two different field data obtained by geotechnical and geophysical methods was achieved for the study area.”

In conclusion: “With this innovative evaluation, the results of the two different field data-based analysis methods were compared.”

  1. Second, all the figures and tables do not have the titles.

Answer:

The titles of the figures and tables have been completed.

 

  1. Third, the means of the variables of the equations should be introduced.

Answer:

The deficiencies regarding the meanings of the variables in the equations were corrected and added to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has carefully revised the manuscript. However, there are too many references. Please reduce unnecessary references.

Author Response

The necessary corrections are made as required for the references. The references removed from the manuscript are shown in red with a strike-through.

Reviewer 2 Report

There is no further question.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for valuable contributions.