Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the paper the CAESARII tool was developed as decision support for local authorities to improve the coordination capacity of the seismic emergency planning and management processes. It can be used to allocate resources for risk mitigation of buildings and infrastructures thorugh cost-benefit and multi-criteria analysis tools. In the proposed work, the CAESAR II model was illustrated and applied to the municipality of Cava de’ Tirreni (Italy). 

The paper is well written and conceived. It deals with a topic which deserves to be treated more and more in the field of Seismic Engineering. It is opinion of this reviewer that the paper is of high quality and represent a milestone for a reliable seismic risk management and retrofit of building stock at municipal scale.

• In the literature review, other than papers from Authors, some other references could be considered. As an example, in the field of multi-criteria decision methods, the following papers could be taken into account: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112544 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1268174
• In the "cost-benefit model" section, how energy costs were evaluated?
• Conclusions should be enriched with much more quantitative outcomes obtained from analysis carried out.
• English should be revised in order ot avoid some typos.

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the interesting suggestions.

Responses to the Reviewer's comments are as follows:

Point 1: In the literature review, other than papers from Authors, some other references could be considered. As an example, in the field of multi-criteria decision methods, the following papers could be taken into account: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112544 https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2016.1268174

Response 1: The two references have been considered.

Point 2: In the "cost-benefit model" section, how energy costs were evaluated?

Response 2: The retrofit costs are calculated from an analysis of the prices of the interventions carried out in Italy.

Point 3: Conclusions should be enriched with much more quantitative outcomes obtained from analysis carried out.

Response 3: The paper aims to describe the CAESAR II tool. The objective of the case study is to exemplify the different functionalities of the tool, without going into the details of the analyses. For this reason, in the conclusions we prefer not to enter the quantitative analysis of the results developed for Cava de' Tirreni.

Point 4: English should be revised in order ot avoid some typos.

Response 4: A revision of the English has been done.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript introduced a tool of seismic risk and cost assessment that can be used by the authorities for emergence planning and reconstruction. Although the tool was developed and demonstrated with Italian hazard, it has potential to be implemented for other earthquake prone areas. It is a very well-written paper.

Line 122: Is PGA the only parameter considered for "Hazard"? Many recent studies have shown that the other factors of ground motion, for example, spectral shape, duration, and energy accumulation, have a great impact on the regional damage. Please justify. 

Figure 1. worth to show a more detailed zoom-in picture of the red cell box for illustration.

Line 281, Suggest to also reference the concept of "fragility curves" after "vulnerability curves", and the following papers:
- Pan et al. 2020 "damage index fragility assessment of low-rise light-frame wood buildings.." in Structural Safety.
- Fairhurst et al. 2019 "Developement of hazard consistent fragility functions for RC shearwall buildings..." in 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

Line 563: the web link does not work, please check.

 

 

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the interesting suggestions.

Responses to the Reviewer's comments are as follows:

Point 1: Line 122: Is PGA the only parameter considered for "Hazard"? Many recent studies have shown that the other factors of ground motion, for example, spectral shape, duration, and energy accumulation, have a great impact on the regional damage. Please justify. 

Response 1: In CAESAR II tool, the hazard parameter used is the PGA (peak ground accelera-tion), because of the availability of PGA-Level Damage fragility curves developed by the authors, whose reliability has been tested in other applications. Although hazard may be defined by different parameters relevant to seismic motions, such as spectral shape, duration and energy content, PGA has been chosen since it represents the most con-solidated quantity used by the Italian community [1; 2; 3; 5]. In this sense, available PGA data sufficiently characterize the entire national territory, while use of different pa-rameters can result in less reliable analyses. It is not excluded that further hazard pa-rameters will also be adopted in the future.

Point 2: Figure 1. worth to show a more detailed zoom-in picture of the red cell box for illustration.

Response 2: The Figure 1 has been modified, but the building map (in gray) is schematic

Point 3: Line 281, Suggest to also reference the concept of "fragility curves" after "vulnerability curves", and the following papers:
- Pan et al. 2020 "damage index fragility assessment of low-rise light-frame wood buildings.." in Structural Safety.
- Fairhurst et al. 2019 "Developement of hazard consistent fragility functions for RC shearwall buildings..." in 12th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering.

Response 3: In accordance with  [28, 29, 30], it has been specified that the curves adopted are of fragility and not of vulnerability

Point 4: Line 563: the web link does not work, please check. Ok

Response 4: The correct link is: www.progettocaesar2.it

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes the production of on-demand 'Seismic Impact scenarios', according to the requests in terms of hazard intensities and relevant elements at risk to be considered in the area object of the simulation.

In the introduction, the Author could also consider the recent paper by Uva et alii (ANTAEUS Project for the Regional Vulnerability Assessment of the Current Building Stock in Historical Centers, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2016, 10(1), pp. 20–43). 

In section 2, pag. 3, the Authors write that exposure and vulnerability are random variables. In the sequel of the manuscript this will be clearly shown, but this is not always true, since these quantities could be evaluated by a deterministic procedure. Few words of clearification could be given for this assumption, here. Altogether, the manuscript is clear and well written.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the interesting suggestions.

Responses to the Reviewer's comments are as follows:

Point 1: In the introduction, the Author could also consider the recent paper by Uva et alii (ANTAEUS Project for the Regional Vulnerability Assessment of the Current Building Stock in Historical Centers, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 2016, 10(1), pp. 20–43). 

Response 1: The reference has been considered.

Point 2: In section 2, pag. 3, the Authors write that exposure and vulnerability are random variables. In the sequel of the manuscript this will be clearly shown, but this is not always true, since these quantities could be evaluated by a deterministic procedure. Few words of clearification could be given for this assumption, here. Altogether, the manuscript is clear and well written.

Response 2: As specified in section 2, the variables can be evaluated on a deterministic or probabilistic basis. In CAESAR II, the approach followed is the probabilistic one, which allows applications at territorial scale, even in the absence of limited data.