Appraisal of the Spatial Resolution of 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Geotechnical Investigation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper can be part of a scientific paper because the topic is interesting but this is not the way to address the scientific work. You made very simple analysis, as in a geophysical course. You did a very qualitative comparison and also you made a big error to compare results with different scale.
I suggest to add more scientific work on this topic.
In the attached file, you can find some detailed comment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Appraisal of the Spatial Resolution of 2D Electrical Resistivity Tomography for Geotechnical Investigation” presents research with the intention of a practical use, since it could enable rather simple determination of potentials of the ERT method application for specific geotechnical problem. The idea is described thoroughly but the Conclusions are too general. I would avoid some well-known influences and focus on more specific ones.
In that sense I suggest adding in Conclusion more quantitative results. For example, the maximum depths at which a layer or block or stratum can be detected relative to the ratio between layer (or block) resistivity and parent rock environment.
Also, it would be interesting to see whether the results would change (and how) if different electrode arrays were used for the same model. From the Conclusion a reader can assume that the only array used is Wenner electrode array, but Dipole-dipole is also used to discuss boundary effects.
Enhancing the relationship between models and geological conditions (models) would be needed. That is to highlight which geotechnical problem, such as underground cavities, changes of rock compactness, fragmentation etc. does the analysed models correspond to.
Language
Although I am not native English speaker, I think that the text needs serious style editing. Here is example from lines 106-112: “However, the measurement result is influenced by soil water content, geological structure, groundwater level and ambient noise, the resistivity is variable, influencing the sensitivity of ERT measurement and spatial analysis of results, so there are still problems in spatial resolution capability, especially the resolution capabilities for identification of layer location and interlayer thickness, variance in tilted stratum and subsurface target detection, and the limitation of peripheral boundary conditions of measuring line, and 3D effect.”
Here are some specific comments, which I hope will be useful for authors.
Figures: I would recommend including explanation of R1, R2, h, α etc. in figure captions.
Figures 11-16 could be greater; scale and axes are barely visible.
Introduction: I suggest to shorten or delete first paragraph (lines 29-34)
Line 50: I do not agree that GPR is electrical method; it belongs to electromagnetic methods
Chapter 2, Principle of 2D ERT, can be omitted. There is no need for such basic chapter; these principles are well known.
Lines 163-164: what does M stands for?
Chapter 3.2.: Try to avoid repetition of the same sentences.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The papers deals with evaluation of 2D electrical resistivity tomography to identify its resolving capabilities with different geological scenarios based on numerical modeling. The innovation of the manuscript is low since similar or even more comprehensive studies have been performed in the past, comparing for example different electrode arrays in different models.
However the value of the paper relies on the comparative analysis of the results in models commonly encountered in geotechnical investigations.
The paper has a potential for publication subject to some revisions related to proofreading of the text and rephrasing some unclear parts (see the attached file for some comments on this). The inversion images should be presented as color images as it will be easier for the reader to follow the respective descriptions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
