Next Article in Journal
Definition of a Protocol to Manage and Officially Confirm SHB Presence in Sentinel Honeybee Colonies
Next Article in Special Issue
An Analytical Study on the Pull-Out Strength of Anchor Bolts Embedded in Concrete Members by SPH Method
Previous Article in Journal
Multiple-Input Convolutional Neural Network Model for Large-Scale Seismic Damage Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Modal-Based Ground Motion Selection Method for the Nonlinear Response Time History Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall Structures
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Fragility Curves and Probabilistic Seismic Demand Models on the Seismic Assessment of RC Frames Subjected to Structural Pounding

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(17), 8253; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11178253
by Maria G. Flenga and Maria J. Favvata *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(17), 8253; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11178253
Submission received: 2 August 2021 / Revised: 30 August 2021 / Accepted: 1 September 2021 / Published: 6 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Seismic Assessment and Design of Structures)

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

Back to TopTop