Analysis of the Dynamic Behavior of Multi-Layered Soil Grounds
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe scientific research article is highly intriguing; however, some adjustments are needed to further refine its presentation and clarity of the concepts discussed. Authors will find the following comments also in the attached pdf file to be facilitated in revisions.
1) I advise authors to avoid mentioning methods in the title
2) Row 12: In my opinion velocity is more correct than “speed” but maybe that's just my personal preference
3) Authors should not use more than five keywords. Furthermore, ground, seismic, and response are not very explanatory keywords
4) At the very beginning of the introductions section, from row 29 to row 31, where authors state “[…] It triggers the propagation of seismic waves in the earth's crust, which has many effects on soil and foundations, such as amplification of seismic waves, earthquake-induced liquefaction, and effects on infrastructure. […]” I advise the authors to rephrase this sentence in "Earthquakes cause seismic waves to propagate through the earth's crust, with numerous effects on soil and foundations, such as seismic wave amplification, earthquake-induced liquefaction and effects on infrastructure, which are modelled in various studies." and at the end of the sentence to add this citation:
- di Marzo, M., Tomassi, A. and Placidi, L., 2024. A Methodology for Structural Damage Detection Adding Masses. Research in Nondestructive Evaluation, pp.1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09349847.2024.2336938
5) The sentence in rows 57-58 (“[…] The density, compaction and geological properties of different soil layers in a multi-layered soil ground affect how seismic waves propagate. […]”) is redundant
6) Rows 68-73: The large number of studies also reported in this paper does not demonstrate such an absence of literature on this subject. Consequently, the authors should better enunciate the gap they want to fill with their work and better highlight the innovativeness of their research.
7) Rows 93-95, when authors declare the geotechnical index properties of silica sand used in this study, perhaps recalling the table (2) is less tedious for the reader
8) Capture of Figure 1: If there is a reference in the caption, I would advise the authors to state that this experimental system used in this study echoes that of Kim et al. 2020.
9) There is a formatting problem in row 152
10) There is a formatting problem from row 160 to row 169
11) In rows 204-205 where authors declare the variable used in equation 2, I don't see any 'gamma' in Vs formula. Maybe the authors meant 'rho'? This confuses the reader with the strains stated in equation 1
12) There is a formatting problem from row 227 to row 232
13) Figure 6 does not show much for the sake of describing the methods of solving the proposed research question
14) I advise the authors to expand the conclusion part on future developments. Moreover, a few lines on the limitations of this research are totally missing
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Attached is the response to reviewer's comments. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1- The abstract needs to be improved and have some numerical data.
2- The introduction needs to be more extensive to explain more related works.
3- The paper needs to have a nomenclature
4- How did you determine the properties of the table 1 and 2?
5- The figures need to have better quality.
The methodology and experimental plan are well structured. The paper can be published after a minor revision.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Attached is the response to the reviewer's comments. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend the publication of this article after MAJOR changes.
Article overview:
The main question addressed by the research is the experimental and numerical analysis of dynamic behavior of multi-layer soil using shaking table. The authors studied amplification and absorption of the seismic waves for different combinations of soil layers using realistic Hachinohe and Ofunato earthquake waves as well as an artificial synthetic wave.
This topic is not original and this article relevance is modest because it is only further development of existing research. The authors showcased improvement compared to the cited state of the art papers, filling a specific gap in the current literature providing a comprehensive research of seismic response of multi-layer soil, while other work studies only two layers of the same soil sample in the shaking table or 3 layers in centrifuge tests. This article adds comparison between experimental and numerical results from DEEPSOIL and ABAQUS finite element programs paving the way for the more accurate seismic disaster risk assessment and prevention
The main issue that the authors need to fix before this article becomes worthy of the publication is description of research methodology: they used numerical analysis to validate experimental results which is the opposite of the established scientific practice and common sense.
Experimental results are always true, and if there is too much discrepancies between experimental and numerical results it means that the numerical model does not correspond to the experimental one. Maybe material model parameters are off, maybe dimensions or boundary conditions, but experiments are always correct. This means that the authors need to correct narrative seen in line 17 and line 178.
Also lines 307-309 need to be elaborated, did the authors used Automatic or Fixed incrementation in ABAQUS step module?
They also need to improve literature overview in the introduction. They need to add more of the recent references published in the last 5 years. Currently there are only 8 new references, others are older, and some are much older.
Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed.
References in this paper are fair, and as said before they need to be expanded with more recent articles. There is self citation of 3 papers from the authors, but that is appropriate giving readers insight of the state of the art soil analysis and more details about experimental setup.
The figures are just acceptable, with inconsistent font size, but at least everything is readable.
Author Response
Attached is the response to the reviewer's comments. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The study shows the behavior of soil layers (sand, clays) or compacted vs. non-compacted behavior during exposure to controlled seismic activity. The main means of research are laboratory tests and numerical simulations. The study's outcome is that compaction largely controls seismic waves and their propagation, which is a very well-known fact. What we are missing is a comparison with a real case.
Can you give some examples?
Rgds, Reviewer
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Attached is the response to the reviewer's comments. Thanks
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI extend my sincere thanks for the remarkable attention to detail and dedication you displayed in revising your manuscript in response to the comments I provided during my review. Upon a thorough re-examination, it was clear that you carefully considered and acted upon each suggestion and issue I noted, which has significantly improved both the clarity and the scholarly depth of your work. Your unwavering commitment to refining the manuscript and maintaining a high level of academic integrity is truly praiseworthy. I appreciate the considerable effort you invested in these revisions, which have undoubtedly enhanced the value of your research to our academic community. I am eager to see the final published version of your paper and am hopeful for opportunities to collaborate or engage in scholarly discussions with you in the future.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved their manuscript, which is now ready for publication
