Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting paper showing very important results of a wide field and numerical investigation. A rather long paper that shows that field and simulation must be always carried out and that, the complex the situation is, the more advanced tools are needed. However, given all the work necessary, the reader is left with the idea that simpler/cheaper tools/methods cannot be used. It would be important for the authors to conclude/compare with the other techniques carried out. Also, because the field exploration if very important, more discussion of the experimental results should be included.

A minor revision is suggested.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the kind review.

The whole text has been reviewed and all the suggestions implemented.

In table 1 (line 117-118), the difference in the material property is probably due to the repointing of the mortar joints with cementitious materials which produce an increment in stiffness and not the overall strength of the masonry.

The conclusions have been modified and expanded.

Reviewer 2 Report

The scientific article that we had to assess is high quality work.
It is clear, precise, relevant, the methodology is clearly presented, the demonstration is of quality and allows a valid answer to the questions asked.
The bibliographical references are numerous, recent, of quality, in short it is about a very relevant scientific analysis which I propose to validate as it is.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the kind review, we all put a big effort into it and we are gratitude of your appreciation.