Potential Design of Seismic Vulnerable Buildings Incorporating Lead Rubber Bearing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached .docx file for the comments suggested to the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

this paper presents an exploratory study on the building system for seismically isolated structure. Satisfactory review is performed on previous work done in this domain. The authors compares the performance of isolated buildings with fixed building system. The weakness of the paper is in the way it has been written. the author needs to state the clear objective of the paper, in comparison to the previous paper. This would be useful for common readers and I feel that this paper was written in a cohesive manner. Also, this paper needs to revise with followings

The abstract needs to be rewritten is a manner is it describes the methods used and not the results.

More explanation on the verification section is needed, not the previous work or not refer to the previous work.

section 2.4.2.2, is it response spectrum method? or is it based on time history analysis? if response spectrum method was used, it can't be reliable with the results. Also, what types of nonlinearity were used in this study, using SAP 2000? can we use the model without the validation of the model?

to show the ground motion uncertainty, how many earthquakes were applied into the analysis?

Random variables on LRB: shear and displacement variation is one of the important geometric variations in the stiffness. How was the stiffness selected in this paper?

As a minimum, FEA method and boundary condition and loads should be presented.

Also, as a minimum, Figure number 9 to 12 and 13 to 16 may need to change such as Figure 9 a,b,c, and d.

Section 4. it must be revised with more clear reasons obtained from the results.

Section 1 and section 5, need strong introduction and conclusion.  

Author Response

File attched

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Following minor revisions are suggested to be implemented.

-        The last value of the acceleration axes of Figures 10c and 10d should be corrected.

-        In Line 323 you said: “Various kinds of LRB devices have various effects on the response parameters like displacement and shear force.” Why? Explain it.

-        In line 324 it is mentioned that: “No specific bearing device seems to be optimum in terms of each and every possible purpose”. What does “being optimum” means in your terminology? The sentence is ambiguous.

-        You should mention the appropriate reference for Figure 3a-b.

-        The quality of Figure 1 is still not good nor acceptable.

Author Response

File attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

accept in present form

Author Response

No comment was given. Accepted as it was.