An Analytical Study on the Damage to School Buildings by the 2015 Nepal Earthquake and Damage Level-Based Reconstruction Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on the steps for predisposing the reconstruction plan of the schools damaged by the 2015 Nepal earthquake. The paper is interesting but present some lack points. I suggest some revisions, as follows:

- The literature at the base of the paper should be improved. In particular, talking about schools and seismic damages, I suggest to check the recent updates about these two topics, e.g., 10.1002/eqe.3725 and references therein

- Regarding the damage form used for surveying schools, who did develop this form? What is the principle at the base of the questions? In my opinion some additional aspects should be reported about the damage collection.

- Is it right use EMS98 scale as macroseismic measure, considering that this scale was developed for other kind of buildings? School are different enough from the buildings used to developed EMS98

- Section 2.2 does not report any informative data for the scope of the paper. Could authors better frame what is the rebuild strategy? 

- Data about damages are well reported, but some doubts remain on the process outlined in Figure 15. Did authors developed this plan or is this the national plan? 

- In the end, what is the research part proposed in the paper? It seems that authors report only data without any kind of new insight. 

Author Response

Response to reviewer #1 as attached.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An Analytical Study on the Damage to School Buildings by the 2 2015 Nepal Earthquake and Damage Level-based Reconstruction Experience

The paper is well-written and is easily readable. I think it deserves the publication on Building provided that some issues are. It lacks mainly an international overview of the problem and  an analysis of damage based on structural types. Please see the following detailed comments.

1.       The introduction is well written even though it only deals with the Nepalese experience. Experiences from abroad could be added as in the following points.

-          For example, seismic damage to Italian school buildings is reported in
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0332-x

-          Strategies for the seismic risk mitigation of public buildings and the reconstruction process are reported in 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.05.011

2.       Line 101: As an engineer, I have never heard about “reinforced cement concrete”. I only know reinforced concrete. This latter is made with cement and aggregates. So please, modify it accordingly

3.       About figure 6. It is incorrect to talk about damage scenario. Instead, it is the observed damage level

4.       Regarding the observed damage, it would be interesting to plot the distribution of damage as a function of the structural types: RC, masonry ecc. This is to highlight the most vulnerable types. This kind of analysis could give some indication of the strategies to be adopted to mitigate the risk in countries with similar school-building portfolios

5.       Again, fig 12 and 13 report the structural types in the affected districts but not the damage for each type. This information should be very helpful.

6.       Conclusions: in my opinion, concluding remarks are almost only based on what has been done in the reconstruction phases, but it misses a future vision on the assessment and retrofit activities that should be done before an earthquake to avoid economic and human life losses. So, I suggest stressing also this concept, as reported in the 2^nd ref I suggested: mitigation policies in peacetime.

 

Forma issues:

7.       Figures are recalled in the text in a wrong manner. It should be “Fig.” and not “Figure”

 

8.       Line 225: “compressive” do the authors intend “comprehensive”?

Author Response

Response to reviewer #2 as attached.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments and suggestions are included in the revised manuscript.

One of the main concerns refers to the distinction between schools and school buildings that shall be clarified from the beginning. The readership might be confused.

Are information of higher education buildings available? If so, it would be very helpful to add it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is good. A final spelling check is at stake.

Author Response

Response to reviewer#3 as attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted for publication 

Author Response

Thanks very much for the kind acceptance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As the comments were addresses correctly, the paper can be published

Author Response

Thanks very much for the kind acceptance.