Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important issue and aims to review the literature on seismically vulnerable adobe structures in Afghanistan, proposing an earthen house model with different strengthening options. However, in its current form, the study contains serious scientific shortcomings and methodological weaknesses.

1. First of all, the abstract does not clearly or accurately convey the scope, methodology, or main findings of the article. As it stands, it remains too general and lacks the level of detail expected in an academic study, making it difficult for readers to understand what the paper actually offers.
2. The sentence “The findings provide a foundation for safer, more resilient, and sustainable construction practices in seismic regions where earthen architecture prevails” is too general, and it should be supported with numerical data from the study. Without such quantitative evidence, the statement remains a broad claim rather than a conclusion grounded in measurable results.
3. Although the number of references is relatively high, recent and relevant studies have not been adequately considered. In particular, the 2023 Türkiye earthquake, one of the most severe and destructive earthquakes in recent history, has prompted a substantial body of research on the seismic performance of adobe and masonry buildings.
4. The benefits of the proposed models could be clearly demonstrated through numerical simulations or experimental testing. However, the study does not include any such analyses, making it difficult to evaluate the practical effectiveness of the reinforcement techniques. As a result, the findings remain largely descriptive and do not generate new knowledge, raising questions about the actual contribution of the work.
5. The literature review section appears to retain a raw, thesis-like structure. Presenting individual studies as separate, standalone paragraphs can be exhausting for the reader and disrupts the overall flow. In my assessment, Chapter 6 would benefit from a complete rewrite to ensure greater readability, presenting the reviewed studies in a more synthesized and integrated manner.
6. The appendix section is overly complex and difficult to follow, which may hinder the reader’s ability to fully understand and utilize the supplementary material.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an extensive literature review of seismic reinforcement strategies for adobe, rammed earth, and Pakhsa structures, combined with an analysis of multiple international building codes and standards. The focus on Afghanistan is highly relevant due to the significant seismic vulnerability of earthen dwellings and the lack of national research on Pakhsa systems. The topic is well-motivated and timely, and the authors provide a very large and useful body of compiled knowledge. However, major revisions are required in order to complete the review and to strengthen the discussion.

1) The current manuscript focuses primarily on the behaviour of the superstructure but does not discuss geotechnical considerations, which are essential for understanding the seismic response of earthen buildings. Even if detailed investigations are not available for the Afghan context, the review should at least address:
- risks of soil liquefaction in areas affected by past earthquakes;
- the interaction between thick earthen walls and deformable soil strata;
- the influence of foundation design and potential differential settlements, which are common in buildings with shallow or undersized foundations;
- possible geotechnical strengthening systems.
A short dedicated section—supported by literature from similar geotechnical contexts—would significantly improve the completeness and robustness of the review.

2) The literature review does not include references to Italian Codes and Guidelines, despite Italy having extensive experience with masonry structures in seismic areas and a well-developed body of standards that are internationally recognised. In particular, the following should be cited and briefly discussed:

- NTC 2018 (National technical standard for construction) - in italian
- CNR DT 200_R2: Guidelines for the Design, Execution and Inspection of Structural Strengthening Interventions Using Fiber-Reinforced Composites. Materials, Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Structures, masonry structures (second revision)
- CNR DT 215: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fibre Reinforced Inorganic Matrix Systems for Strenghtening Existing Structures

In addition, several scientific papers investigate the effects of composite materials on the seismic behaviour of masonry structures. For instance, the authors may refer to:

- Ferretti, F., Khatiwada, S., Incerti, A., Giacomin, G., Tomaro, F., De Martino, V., & Mazzotti, C. (2023). Structural strengthening of masonry elements by reinforced repointing combined with FRCM and CRM. Procedia Structural Integrity, 44, 2254-2261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2023.01.288
- Belliazzi, S., Fabbrocino, F., Lignola, G. P., & Prota, A. (2024, October). Advantages of using DIC for capturing mechanical shear sliding behaviour of the FRCM strengthened masonry. In Structures (Vol. 68, p. 107056). Elsevier. tps://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107056
- Lau, K. T., Hung, P. Y., Zhu, M. H., & Hui, D. (2018). Properties of natural fibre composites for structural engineering applications. Composites Part B: Engineering, 136, 222-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.10.038

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of this section has been revised, which is appreciated. However, Section 7.6 is still somewhat limited. Adding a few more recent and relevant studies would make the literature section more comprehensive and robust.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the revisions, the paper can be accepted in its current form.