Seismic Energy Upgrading of an Existing Brick Masonry Building by a Cold-Formed Steel Envelope System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents the seismic performance of the Resisto 5.9 system with modeling results from a case study. Overall the result is solid and the paper is straightforward to follow, and I believe it should be accepted.

Author Response

This manuscript presents the seismic performance of the Resisto 5.9 system with modeling results from a case study. Overall the result is solid and the paper is straightforward to follow, and I believe it should be accepted.

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the positive feedback on the submitted paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed this article which deals with increasing the resistance against earthquakes of masonry buildings in Italy by means of steel envelopes.

Regarding the topic, is an original contribution since there are few cost effective methods to reinforce traditional constructions in this area often afflicted by devastating earthquakes. It definitely contributes to scientific knowledge.

This article provides as a novelty the systematic study and cast in place of an economic system that is very thoroughly analysed by means of scientific structural methods.

The authors could improve the methodology by further discussing the scientific equations underlying their procedures. Perhaps also studying how the steel reinforcements could be embedded into the fabrics or masonry instead of added on the external surface.

Their graphs could be detailed in a more accurate manner for future predictions but we judge it sufficient in the article.

The graphic part of the article is quite complete and thoroughly readable.

The conclusions are consistent and interesting but I feel that they could be expanded with different initiatives apart from this Resisto patent. Also by developing a larger number of case studies. What would be the interaction between masonry fabric and steel structure when subject to extraordinary forces? Will they appear aesthetically unacceptable fissures?

The rest of the article seems well crafted and referenced and I hardly find any slip in its core development except for the above mentioned.

Summary of evaluation: This article sets interesting precedents for new scientific knowledge of the building sector against earthquake derived problems in Italy. I suggest that minor revisions could be performed before proceeding further for publication.

Author Response

Regarding the topic, is an original contribution since there are few cost effective methods to reinforce traditional constructions in this area often afflicted by devastating earthquakes. It definitely contributes to scientific knowledge.

This article provides as a novelty the systematic study and cast in place of an economic system that is very thoroughly analysed by means of scientific structural methods.

The authors are grateful for the quality of the reviewer's suggestions useful for the improvement of the proposed study. All the revisions have been highlighted in red in the reviewed version of the manuscript.

The authors could improve the methodology by further discussing the scientific equations underlying their procedures. Perhaps also studying how the steel reinforcements could be embedded into the fabrics or masonry instead of added on the external surface.

Major details on the equations are given. About intervention type, Resisto 5.9 is intended to be applied only externally to the structure to avoid the disruption of building inhabitants. However, if it should be applied also internally to the building, a sandwich type application is done using passing connectors through the wall thickness to join the two reinforcing layers of the system.

Their graphs could be detailed in a more accurate manner for future predictions but we judge it sufficient in the article.

The graphic part of the article is quite complete and thoroughly readable.

The conclusions are consistent and interesting but I feel that they could be expanded with different initiatives apart from this Resisto patent. Also by developing a larger number of case studies. What would be the interaction between masonry fabric and steel structure when subject to extraordinary forces? Will they appear aesthetically unacceptable fissures?

Conclusions were improved with your suggestion. In case of extraordinary seismic forces, of course a crack pattern should appear in the cladding of the Resisto 5.9 coat and maybe also on masonry walls. However, this is what expected, since for strong ground motions it is not required that structural and non-structural components will not undergo damages. Nevertheless, the coating systems will avoid the overturning of masonry walls, other than providing an improvement of seismic behaviour of masonry walls in their plane.

The rest of the article seems well crafted and referenced and I hardly find any slip in its core development except for the above mentioned.

 Summary of evaluation: This article sets interesting precedents for new scientific knowledge of the building sector against earthquake derived problems in Italy. I suggest that minor revisions could be performed before proceeding further for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The presented work emphasized on the "Seismic – energy upgrading of an existing brick masonry building by a cold-formed steel envelope system"  However, following shortcomings and concerns are presented in the manuscript and which has to be rectified before further processing.

1)  The abstract should provide an overview of proposed methods/methodology, materials with obtained results in the form of quantitative values. The present abstract is looks like Introduction. Therefore, it is mandatory to include the quantitative analysis results of proposed work in Abstract section.

2) Figure 1 (a) should include the labels on different layers presented. 

3) What is the main reason for using U shaped mettle other than L, box type, round etc ? 

4) In general figure formatting is poor in overall paper please revise the formatting of figures. 

5) The recent Literatures available in this field should be included in the introduction section.

6) It is suggested to highlight the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work and future directions in the conclusion section. Also, the conclusion can be presented better than the present form with more findings.

Author Response

The presented work emphasized on the "Seismic – energy upgrading of an existing brick masonry building by a cold-formed steel envelope system"  However, following shortcomings and concerns are presented in the manuscript and which has to be rectified before further processing.

The authors are grateful for the quality of the reviewer's suggestions useful for the improvement of the proposed study. All the revisions have been highlighted in red in the reviewed version of the manuscript.

1)  The abstract should provide an overview of proposed methods/methodology, materials with obtained results in the form of quantitative values. The present abstract is looks like Introduction. Therefore, it is mandatory to include the quantitative analysis results of proposed work in Abstract section.

Abstract was modified.

2) Figure 1 (a) should include the labels on different layers presented. 

It was done.

3) What is the main reason for using U shaped mettle other than L, box type, round etc ? 

Theay are easier to be assembled and to accommodate gusset plates for connections of braces.

4) In general figure formatting is poor in overall paper please revise the formatting of figures. 

Fomatting was improved.

5) The recent Literatures available in this field should be included in the introduction section.

It was already included, considering that seismic-energy coating systems are not very diffused in the market field.

6) It is suggested to highlight the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work and future directions in the conclusion section. Also, the conclusion can be presented better than the present form with more findings.

It was done.