Assessment of the Mechanical Properties of Low-Cost Seismic Isolators Exposed to Environmental Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is very interesting and within the scope of this journal. However, a major revision is suggested before this version of the manuscript is accepted for publication based on the major problems mentioned above.

1.The introduction of the manuscript lacks sufficient and comprehensive explanation of the existing international literature and its research status.

2.Suggest reading more literature to expand research ideas

3.The 3th chapter "3. results and discussion" needs to be clearer.

4.Are the data and results obtained using the pseudo-acceleratic spectra of the ground motion for a damping coefficient of 5% accurate and reliable?

5.The manuscript needs to provide detailed characteristics of the analyzed type of structure.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This work is very interesting and within the scope of this journal. However, a major revision is suggested before this version of the manuscript is accepted for publication based on the major problems mentioned above.

1.The introduction of the manuscript lacks sufficient and comprehensive explanation of the existing international literature and its research status.

2.Suggest reading more literature to expand research ideas.

3.The 3th chapter "3. results and discussion" needs to be clearer.

4.Are the data and results obtained using the pseudo-acceleratic spectra of the ground motion for a damping coefficient of 5% accurate and reliable?

5.The manuscript needs to provide detailed characteristics of the analyzed type of structure.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, and the changes made are included in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The study has an interesting and compelling title that immediately captures the reader’s attention. However, the content of the literature survey does not seem to align well with the title's focus. Expanding the survey to directly address the study's emphasis on low-cost seismic isolators and their performance under environmental conditions (seismic) would strengthen the overall coherence  (Stanikzai, M. H., Elias, S., Matsagar, V. A., & Jain, A. K. (2019). Seismic response control of base‐isolated buildings using multiple tuned mass dampers. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 28(3), e1576.; Stanikzai, M. H., Elias, S., Matsagar, V. A., & Jain, A. K. (2020). Seismic response control of base-isolated buildings using tuned mass damper. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 21(1), 310-321.).

2. A flowchart illustrating the study's methodology would significantly enhance clarity. Visualizing the process, from initial material characterization to prototype testing and seismic analysis, would help readers understand the sequence and interrelation of the steps taken.

3. The study would benefit from a clearly articulated future scope. Identifying potential avenues for further research, such as long-term field testing, innovations in isolator materials, or expanded environmental degradation parameters, would add depth and direction to the work.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, and the changes made are included in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication if the following suggestions are included.

Please see the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, and the changes made are included in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript discusses an interesting subject that may be useful for academia and industry. Following are the reviewer’s suggestions

 Section 2 is too long. It may be summarized as the research methodologies. The details of the experiment may be placed in Section 3.1 and 3.2 while the case study is introduced in Section 3.3.

 Section 3 should be reorganized. It should be shortened so that readers bother to read. Maybe Section 3.1 and 3.2 can be Section 3 and Section 3.3 can be Section 4.

 Section 4 should be improved as follows.

 1 Eigenvalue analysis should be performed. The transition of the eigenvalue should be plotted in accordance with the material degradation and damage accumulation.

2 Incremental dynamic analysis may be more appropriate than the response spectrum analysis.

3 The details of the building should be provided.  

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, and the changes made are included in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A re-review of the manuscript is required.

 

1) At the end of Abstract, it is suggested to add and better highlight (in a very synthetic way) some specific noteworthy results/findings of the study.

 

2) In Introduction, it is suggested to extend the literature review on fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators for seismic protection of structures. To this aim, the authors can effectively mention, for instance at the beginning of Introduction near De Domenico et al. (2023), the following studies on unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-00544-6

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.01.022

 

3) Section 2.4, Line 19. Better explain: “the effective period at maximum displacement”

 

4) Section 2.4. It is suggested to provide the main results (at least the fundamental period and the effective mass of the first two vibration modes) of eigenvalue analysis of the building (without isolation system) under study.

 

5) Table 1. Explain “Horizontal damping” equal to 6.10%

 

6) Figures 9, 11, 13. Provide the meaning of CB in the caption of the figures.

 

7) Section 3.3. “Equations 2 and 3 were modified to only consider….”. Check the numbering of equations.

 

8) Section 3.3, Figure 19. Provide the definition of “the percentage of drifts by story”.

 

9) Fig. 20. Check the quantity on the vertical axis of the two diagrams. “Overstrain” should be replaced by “Overstress”.

 

10) Provide the definition of “overstress Index”.

 

11) Section 4 (Conclusions). Conclusions properly summarizes the main results of the study. However, it is suggested to better highlight, in some points, the main novelty contributions/findings of the study.

 

12) Conclusions (Section 4) lacks recommendations for future research. At the end of Conclusions, it is suggested that the authors provide some useful recommendations for future work.

 

13) A revision of the text is required to improve the quality of English language.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, and the changes made are included in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Can be published now

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.