Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Section of Introduction, the review of present work is insufficient. It is better to take a look at the history of utilizing fragility curves. The authors can take a look at the following article:https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1477637. Other literature on numerical models for the same purpose (or similar) can be added, addressing the assumptions, main challenges and advancements.

• What is the novelty of this research study?
• Line 132-133, the functions are unclear. The authors need to write all functions in the paper using “word Equation”.
• Figure 1, is not clear. It is recommended to show cross-sections of C3-C32. Why did the authors show figure 1b?
• Line 138, the software needs a reference.
• The processing scheme seems interesting; however, the manuscript organization is feeble. For example, the authors recommended explaining the methodology of fragility curves in section 2. Then in section 3, numerical modeling and section 4 result and discussion.
• In section 3, the authors explained about, CDF, MLE, etc.…It is better to add more references for each subsection and a brief explanation of what previous researchers have been performed.
• Line 264, the link of reference 31 is dead
• The characteristics of seismic motion (FN, FP, Mw, R) should be identified in the text.
• The authors should mention the structural characteristics (such as period, yield displacement) of the investigated systems.
• Soil-structure interaction is totally neglected.  It should be included in the model.
• In figs5,6,12: the PSDM methods have less probability of failure comparing other methods, is there any justification?
• Damage states are not clearly identified in the paper.
• How did the authors consider plasticity in the modeling? The authors gave a brief explanation in lines 140-142. It is not sufficient. All the functions regarding the plastic hinges should be included in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your significant work. Please see the attached file where some comments have been included.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the manuscript has been significantly improved and it is ready for publication in Applied Sciences