Fast Seismic Assessment of Built Urban Areas with the Accuracy of Mechanical Methods Using a Feedforward Neural Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a methodology for performing seismic assessment of existing RC buildings based on a simple neaural network model employed on an extensive set of mechanical models. The paper is very interesting and a great work has been made by authors for achieving the proposed results. I suggest authors to improve the manuscript by means of the comments in the attached PDF file, and to return a review of their paper before to a final acceptance

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article addresses an important topic of fast seismic assessment of built urban areas with the accuracy of mechanical methods using a simple neural network model, which is appreciated. The article is very interesting and very important in seismic analysis. The study includes numerical analysis. The paper the encompasses a tough regression problem that has required a deep neural network architecture and a training set of more than 7,000 structures. The methodology proposed allows: (i) bypassing heavy and highly specialized computer calculations and complex non-linear modeling, (ii) enabling fast and easy evaluations in emergency scenarios, and (iii) predicting missing data. The Reviewer appreciates the efforts done in this paper, however, the Reviewer has some concerns regarding to the structure of article, introduction, methodology, results and discussion. The English language should be checked by the Native Speaker. In Reviewer's opinion the current version of the paper should be subjected for major revised.

Generally, the paper is too long for the scientific paper. Below you can find the rules for the scientific paper and example of the papers.

Structure of article:

• Introduction – State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
• Material and methods – Provide sufficient details to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher. Methods that are already published should be summarized, and indicated by a reference. If quoting directly from a previously published method, use quotation marks and also cite the source. Any modifications to existing methods should also be described.
• Theory/calculation – A Theory section should extend, not repeat, the background to the article already dealt with in the Introduction and lay the foundation for further work. In contrast, a Calculation section represents a practical development from a theoretical basis.
• Results – Results should be clear and concise.
• Discussion – This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
• Conclusions – The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section.

Example of scientific paper:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164493
• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956059920956944
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2022.108884
• https://doi.org/10.1016/0267-7261(95)00049-6

In addition, the paper was prepared very carelessly, especially the figures (Fig.11, 26, 27, 28 etc.). Other comments to the particular parts of the paper are as follow:

Introduction:

• In this part of the text please add or much more underline, what is the new of this research/article based on the article from last 5 years? What is the difference between this paper and other papers which were cited in the text?
• The aim of this paper should be short and more clear.

Methodology:

• What does 254 mean “Reinforcements of RC elements are defined according to Error! Reference source not 254 found.” Please add the properties of this and other materials.
• Point 3.4.1. and 3.4.2. are the same, this is correct?
• Point 3.4.2 is not clear. Please explain this section e.g. show the figure with curve etc.
• Why in the analysis the pushover method was used? Why was not Time History method used in this research? In SAP2000 the Time History method is really fast and precise to evaluate a seismic effect of RC structures. Please explain it and add in the text.

Results

• The figures 19, 20, 21, 22, according to the Reviewer, will be a better fit for the line diagram.
• There is really too much data for results. Please select the most important data and show them in a concise manner.

Discussion of results

• Please explain the mechanisms, tendency which had impact of the results.

Finally, I hope that my comments will be helpful to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Describe the exact definition of the capacity curve, which is presumably the relationship between base shear and top roof displacement.

Please describe how shear and deformation are standardized in Figure 7.

Please correct "Error! Reference source not found." in Page 7 and Page 10.

Two Figure 11s on Page 14 and one Figure 11 on page 28 should be corrected. 

Arrangement of Figures on Pages 25 through 27 should be corrected.

Table 5s on Page 18, Page 20, and Page 28 should be corrected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After the review provided by authors. 

Author Response

English language has been reviewed once more by a professional native English reviewer.

We thank the reviewer for the useful comments which have helped to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your improving. Unfortunately, not all of my comments were taken into account.

1. In the opinion of Reviewer this paper is too long for the scientific paper. Thus, please correct one more time the length of this paper.
2. Please add and explain why do you use the pushover analysis instead of Time History analysis with real seismic records. In addition, please compare advantages of these methods based on the research bridge, buildings or/and lightweight structures (below you can find some papers with pushover analysis and Time History analysis. Please read these papers and if you agree with Reviewer you can also cited in the text:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164493
• https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042116
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101906
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2013.04.003
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104245
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103808
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113587
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106950
• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110528

3. In the part: discussion of results, please compare your results with other papers.
4. The paper is prepared very carelessly, especially the references.

At the end I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There are no content-related corrections.
Please check the appearance of the final printed manuscript. For example, when figure numbers are corrected, in some cases spaces seem to have been removed (for example, Fig.24shows).

Author Response

Please check the appearance of the final printed manuscript. For example, when figure numbers are corrected, in some cases spaces seem to have been removed (for example, Fig.24shows).

Dear reviewer. Thanks for your comment. Those typos have now been removed.

Additionally, English language has been reviewed once more by a professional native English reviewer.

We thank you for the useful comments that have helped to improve the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your improving. In the opinion of the Reviewer this paper can be published in current version.