Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A geotechnical seismic isolation system is investigated in this manuscript through vertical barriers, with various geometrical properties, using rubber-soil mixture (RSM). The manuscript needs to be improved considering the following comments:

- The introduction suffers from lack of recent advances in the soil-structure-interactions. The literature review needs to be enriched by demonstrating the knowledge gap.

-Only one earthquake is used for investigation. please add a near-field earthquake to add generalizability of the findings. 

- The mesh size and configuration alters the results significantly. Please elaborate the process of mesh selection and optimization. What are the recommendations for future applications?

- The structural and geometric properties of the considered building need to be added in a figure.

- Conclusions need to be rewritten to include the summary of the paper content along with bullet points of the achievements. Please add quantitative results.

- Figures have low quality. Please replace with more professionally developed ones. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our work. I am sending a revised version with corrections to the comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the development and effectiveness of a geotechnical seismic isolation system using vertical barriers made of a rubber-soil mixture. The study aims to provide reliable seismic isolation for buildings, particularly in regions prone to earthquakes. Numerical and experimental analyses were conducted to assess the impact of various barrier configurations on seismic response, demonstrating significant reductions in horizontal accelerations and potential applications in earthquake-resistant construction.

Overall, the paper presents valuable research on a novel approach to seismic protection of structures. However, it would benefit from additional discussion on the broader applicability and long-term implications of the proposed system. Therefore, a major revision is recommended.

The paper has several strengths, including a comprehensive numerical and experimental methodology and a clear focus on practical applications of the seismic isolation system. The results are well-documented, showing the effectiveness of the barriers in reducing seismic impacts. However, there are also some weaknesses. The discussion on the long-term durability and maintenance of the rubber-soil materials is limited. Additionally, the study focuses primarily on specific case scenarios without broader generalization, and there is a lack of comparison with alternative seismic isolation technologies.

Other important aspects that should be discussed include potential reductions in the bearing capacity of the foundation soil when barriers are in close proximity to the structure, potentially interfering with the significant volume of soil that contributes to defining the static and seismic bearing capacity of the Foundation-Soil System.

Moreover, in the case of real structures, moving beyond the simple plane case, how might the efficiency of the protection system change with varying geometric arrangements of the barriers? Among the benefits these barriers could provide is the possibility of protecting surrounding structures from radiation emitted by buildings during oscillatory phases (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9134-5), which can be significant, particularly for structures with substantial mass and dimensions.

Another aspect on which the authors might provide further considerations is the effectiveness of the system in relation to varying dynamic site characteristics and the potential development of these barriers in mitigating the effects of soil-structure resonance when the building's resonance frequency is close to that of the site. Developments in this direction could be crucial in significantly impacting seismic protection for structures affected by soil-structure resonance phenomena. Such conditions are commonly observed in the analysis of buildings damaged following seismic events, where resonance effects have often played a decisive role in cases of collapse or significant damage (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9201-y, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9257-3).

Furthermore, it has been observed that the Protection System exhibits reduced efficiency in some period bands (typically within a one-second range) compared to other period bands. The underlying cause of this discrepancy remains unclear. Please provide a commentary on this matter.

In terms of minor comments, the paper is generally well-structured but could benefit from a clearer separation of the numerical and experimental sections. The figures and tables are informative but could be more consistently labelled for easier reference. The quality of the figures must be improved.

The authors are asked to consider the feedback provided and to ensure consistency in the editing of the text, conclusions and bibliography.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our work. I am sending a revised version with corrections to the comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a comprehensive study on Geotechnical Seismic Isolation (GSI) using Rubber-Soil-Mixture (RSM) barriers for seismic protection of structures. The research is well designed with a strong experimental and analytical foundation, as evidenced by the use of Plaxis software for simulation and validation through dynamic analysis. The manuscript is generally well written with a clear structure that follows the logical progression from introduction, methodology, results to conclusions. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved in terms of clarity, technical detail, and depth of analysis. The proposed revisions aim to refine these aspects and improve the overall impact and readability of the paper.

 

1. Abstract: The abstract is concise, but could better highlight the novel contributions of the study. Consider revising to explicitly state the main findings and their implications for seismic engineering practice.

2. Introduction (Lines 30-45): The introduction effectively sets the stage for the research, but could benefit from a more detailed review of previous work comparing traditional seismic isolation methods with the proposed GSI approach. This would strengthen the justification for the current study.

3. Lines 67-69: The term "GSI" is introduced abruptly. Provide a brief definition or description when first introducing this acronym to help the reader understand.

4. Line 84: The environmental impact of rubber flooring use is briefly mentioned. Expand on this point, possibly by adding a subsection in the discussion of the sustainability implications of using recycled materials in seismic isolation.

5. Materials and Methods (Lines 121-133): The description of the Plaxis software setup is somewhat vague. Provide more detailed information on the modeling parameters and assumptions to improve reproducibility.

6. Lines 150-153: When discussing material properties such as density and Poisson's ratio, include a comparative analysis or references to support the values chosen, as they significantly affect the simulation results.

7. Results (Lines 189-210): The results are well documented with figures and tables, but the discussion of the implications of these results is limited. Expand this section to include more on how these results compare to existing solutions or what they mean for future GSI designs.

8. Line 247-249: The effect of barrier depth on seismic isolation is critical. Provide a more detailed analysis of why certain depths are more effective, possibly including a sensitivity analysis of the depth parameter.

9. Discussion (Lines 319-330): The discussion synthesizes the results well, but lacks a critical evaluation against the existing literature. Include more references to similar studies and discuss how your results agree or differ from those studies.

10. Figures 3 and 6 (Lines 158, 224): Ensure that all figures are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Some figures are mentioned without sufficient context or explanation.

11. Conclusions (Lines 319-337): The conclusions succinctly summarize the findings, but could be strengthened by explicitly stating recommendations for practical applications or future research directions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall English quality of the manuscript is good, with clarity and coherence maintained throughout the document. Technical vocabulary is used appropriately, reflecting a good understanding of the subject matter. However, there are minor areas where the language could be polished to improve readability and professional tone:

1. Consistency of terminology: Ensure that terms are used consistently throughout the paper to avoid confusion. For example, both "rubber soil mix" and "RSM" are used; choose one term and stick to it throughout the document for clarity.

2. Grammatical order: There are occasional grammatical errors that need to be corrected, such as misplaced modifiers and awkward phrasing. For example, revising sentences to avoid passive voice can make the text more engaging.

3. Technical descriptions: Some descriptions are overly complex or convoluted. Simplifying these can make the paper more accessible to readers who do not specialize in the field.

4. Punctuation and Conjunctions: Watch for overuse of conjunctions and make sure punctuation is used correctly to improve the flow of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our work. I am sending a revised version with corrections to the comments.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all my comments satisfactorily. I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of all the authors, thank you for your consideration and appreciation of our work.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards, 

Zhanar O. Zhumadilova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' response to the review does not meet the rigorous standards required for publication in an international scientific journal. Although the research is at an advanced stage of development, the results presented are not yet sufficiently mature to warrant publication. The concerns raised in the previous review have been only partially addressed, with several fundamental issues remaining unresolved. The authors assert that their proposed technique offers a viable solution for seismic protection of buildings; however, this claim is not substantiated by the presented results. At a minimum, the proposed method would require significantly more realistic numerical analyses and experimental validations. It is premature to consider a seismic protection method mature and applicable without these levels of validation, particularly given the potential risks to the safety of building occupants. A critical issue that remains unaddressed in the authors' response is the impact of the barriers on foundation settlement. The barriers, composed of an extremely soft material (as inferred from the S-wave velocity, which is less than 100 m/s, a parameter included in the new figure added during the revision), significantly reduce the lateral confinement provided by the surrounding soil on the foundation, thereby affecting its deformability and settlement. This aspect must be thoroughly investigated through parametric analyses that elucidate the impact of the barriers on the static behavior of the structure, taking into account varying dimensions and their subsequent implications. Therefore, it is recommended that this manuscript be rejected in its current form, with the authors encouraged to revise and resubmit it after addressing all the critical issues highlighted by the reviewers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of all the authors, thank you for your consideration and appreciation of our work.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards, 

Zhanar O. Zhumadilova

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.