You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Davide Forcellini

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a study about the role of climate change in the seismic resilience assessment of structure and infrastructure. The topic treated in the paper is interesting and the concepts proposed are enough innovative. In addition the paper is well written and it can be potentially accepted for publication. Nevertheless, some aspects need to be clarified before a final acceptance. The authors can find all the Reviewer's comments in the attached PDF file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for the time and attention devoted to my paper. I really appreciated your observations because they allowed to develop more details. Please see the attached pdf with my point-by-point response to your comments.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a subtle manner of incorporating a new parameter into a resilience model. This particular parameter is "climate" oriented, and much of the paper is spent on the literature review with a few trivial plots of functions. Overall, there is a lack of complexity to this paper, and the case study presented is not discussed properly in the conclusion in the form of results. Significant expansion on the results of the case study are merited in a discussion, and a comparison in this discussion about how the incorporation of climate effected the results 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for the time and attention devoted to my paper. I really appreciated your observations because they allowed to develop more details. Please see the attached file with my point-by-point response to your comments.

Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All suggestions have been considered in the revised version of manuscript. The paper can be accepted for publication

Author Response

Thanks

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Typos in figures 8 and 9 title, should say “Shear” instead of “Schear”

Author Response

Many thanks

please see the developed manuscript attached.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx