Parametric Analysis on Local Mechanisms of Masonry Churches in Teramo (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are as follows:

1. Regarding line 39, it is not clear why the authors choose linear kinematic approach with respect to other methods in conducting such parametric study on heights and thicknesses of walls. I recommend the authors to add a short comparison of these methods in the introduction part.
2. In line 178, the notation of spectral acceleration is not written or missing.
3. In line 180, the notations ag, S is not explained. Adding reference is not enough. Same comments also are for notations in line 186.
4. Figure 3, the units of the dimensions are missing.
5. The physical meaning or explanation for the analysis results of each failure mechanism should be added in relevant sections.
6. Figure 4 (b,c,d,e), the legend of horizontal line should be included in graph. Same comments also for Figures 5~11.
7. Proposed equations 11~15, the correlation should be added on figures for formulated equations in order to show the regression coefficient or errors.
8. The conclusion should focus mainly on the outcome of this study. I feel that it is not that clear. For example, it can be added that equations are proposed for height and thickness of walls......
9. Overall comment, I recommend to enhance the resolution of the figures. Some of them are not that sharp.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the very useful comments and suggestions, which have been taken into account to improve the manuscript. The replies to the reviewer are reported point-by-point as follows. The related modifications and integrations have been reported in the manuscript with red text.

1. Regarding line 39, it is not clear why the authors choose linear kinematic approach with respect to other methods in conducting such parametric study on heights and thicknesses of walls. I recommend the authors to add a short comparison of these methods in the introduction part.

It has been justified the use of the linear kinematic approach by illustrating also the other methods commonly employed.

2. In line 178, the notation of spectral acceleration is not written or missing.

It has been done.

3. In line 180, the notations ag, S is not explained. Adding reference is not enough. Same comments also are for notations in line 186.

Integrations done.

4. Figure 3, the units of the dimensions are missing.

Dimensions have been added.

5. The physical meaning or explanation for the analysis results of each failure mechanism should be added in relevant sections.

Added in sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 e 4.5.

6. Figure 4 (b,c,d,e), the legend of horizontal line should be included in graph. Same comments also for Figures 5~11.

Legends have been included in pictures.

7. Proposed equations 11~15, the correlation should be added on figures for formulated equations in order to show the regression coefficient or errors.

Curves derived from equations have been compared to the analytical ones and errors have been highlighted.

8. The conclusion should focus mainly on the outcome of this study. I feel that it is not that clear. For example, it can be added that equations are proposed for height and thickness of walls......

Conclusions have been integrated.

9. Overall comment, I recommend to enhance the resolution of the figures. Some of them are not that sharp.

Quality of figures has been improved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, check the comments in the paper (document attached) 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the very useful comments and suggestions, which have been taken into account to improve the manuscript. The replies to the reviewer are reported point-by-point as follows. The related modifications and integrations have been reported in the manuscript with blue text.

1. I recommend removing the lines on the map, and ordering the images according to the numbers

Done

1. Please, check this part. Please, write the missing letter

All greek symbols in the formulas disappeared. Now they have been reported correctly in the text.

1. Please, check the position of the red line in figure C and D

Done

1. Please, change the colour of the line (Fig. 7d)

It has been modified with red color.

1. Please, check the colour of the line and the image caption (serie 1)

The image has been modified using right colors and legend captions.

1. Please, change the colour of the horizontal lines as in the other figures.

Done.

1. I recommend using the same graphical ranges in all the paper figures

It has been done modifying the scale of values in Figure 11. Moreover, the limit values of a have been clarified for each mechanism.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Introduction section

• What about local mechanisms of masonry churches outside of Italy? Spain? Portugal? France? UK? I consider that Authors should improve the Introduction of the current version of the manuscript. At this time the are completely focused on Italy. An International background it is necessary to include.

2. The case studies section

• Some comments:
• Table 1. In my opinion, it should be a Figure. It is due to Authors are including images or picture from the churches located in central Italy.
• Authors are studying a set of 12 heritage constructions (parish churches). In these sense, it must be included a general description of the set of buildings. Main architectural and constructive features. They present some similarities. Yes/No. Why these constructions were selected? It was due to what?
• Figure 1. It must be clearly improved. Some numbers are not clear and Authors use a screenshot from Google maps? Please, it is not admissible in international journal publications.
• Table 1. It also must be improved. Some texts included in the plan layout column can not be reed. The text is in many sizes. Please check it. In 4. Saint Nicola is what? A chapel? A Church? If Authors do not have a picture from the interior of the buildings, the column “Internal view” should be in a blank space. In 5. Saint Catherine of Alexandria the text is in Italian.
• Table 2, I think is ok.
• Table 3 gives some information about the construction. However, Authors should include information related to the justification of the architectural and construction selection related to the case studies.

3. Local collapse mechanisms

• Figure 2 is too much than confuse. Please, improve. Currently, it is not understandable.

4. Parametric analyses

• Texts of the Figures 4, 5, 6,7 and 9, 10 are not readable.
• Could you explain why in parametric analysis type B the church thickness is fixed to 0.70m?
• Explain why: “it is noticed that the collapse multiplier increases when both height and roof weight decrease.”

5. Conclusions

• Conclusions must be improved. Which is the main goal of this research?
• Why I need to use this research work?
• This research can be applied in South Spain in zone with seismic affection? Or even in the west coastline of America? For example: in LA or in South America, in Chile? Why?, Why not?
• How this manuscript can help to the public government in future scenarios of heritage construction preservations?
• What about future research work?

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The Authors would like to acknowledge the reviewer for the very useful comments and suggestions, which have been taken into account to improve the manuscript. The replies to the reviewer are reported point-by-point as follows. The related modifications and integrations have been reported in the manuscript with red text.

1. Introduction section

• What about local mechanisms of masonry churches outside of Italy? Spain? Portugal? France? UK? I consider that Authors should improve the Introduction of the current version of the manuscript. At this time the are completely focused on Italy. An International background it is necessary to include.Local mechanisms of masonry churches are the same all over the world. Italy can be considered one of higher seismic risk country of Europe. For this reason it has been selected as investigation area and a sample of churches has been chosen in one of its most hazardous areas (Abruzzo region hit by the devastating 2009 earthquake). However, reference to the European standard and to some international papers has been done in the introduction in order to have a more general overview on the problem.  
• The case studies section
•  
•  

• Some comments:
• Table 1. In my opinion, it should be a Figure. It is due to Authors are including images or picture from the churches located in central Italy.  
•  
• The table has been transformed into a figure.
• Authors are studying a set of 12 heritage constructions (parish churches). In these sense, it must be included a general description of the set of buildings. Main architectural and constructive features. They present some similarities. Yes/No. Why these constructions were selected? It was due to what?The section on case studies has been integrated with your comments.
•  
•  
• Figure 1. It must be clearly improved. Some numbers are not clear and Authors use a screenshot from Google maps? Please, it is not admissible in international journal publications.The picture has been improved, also according to the request of another review. 
•  
•  
• Table 1. It also must be improved. Some texts included in the plan layout column can not be reed. The text is in many sizes. Please check it.  It is a church. The photo has been put in “external view” column, whereas “internal view” column has been left empty. In 5. Saint Catherine of Alexandria the text is in Italian. 
• The text has been modified.
•  
• In 4. Saint Nicola is what? A chapel? A Church? If Authors do not have a picture from the interior of the buildings, the column “Internal view” should be in a blank space.
• It has been well formatted.
• Table 2, I think is ok.
• ok

• Table 3 gives some information about the construction. However, Authors should include information related to the justification of the architectural and construction selection related to the case studies.In section 2 it has been explained why these churches were chosen. They were investigated by some of the authors after the 2016 Central Italy earthquake in order to evaluate their usability according to the request of the Italian Civil Protection Department.
•  

3. Local collapse mechanisms

• Figure 2 is too much than confuse. Please, improve. Currently, it is not understandable.It has been improved. 
• 4. Parametric analyses
• Texts of the Figures 4, 5, 6,7 and 9, 10 are not readable. 

• Texts have been improved.
• Could you explain why in parametric analysis type B the church thickness is fixed to 0.70m? 
• It is the average thickness. It has been inserted in section 4.2.
• Explain why: “it is noticed that the collapse multiplier increases when both height and roof weight decrease.”It has been explained the reason why. 
•  
• 5. Conclusions
• Conclusions must be improved. Which is the main goal of this research?

• Why I need to use this research work?
• This research can be applied in South Spain in zone with seismic affection? Or even in the west coastline of America? For example: in LA or in South America, in Chile? Why?, Why not?
• How this manuscript can help to the public government in future scenarios of heritage construction preservations?
• What about future research work?Conclusions have been integrated and improved.
•  
•  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been particularly improved. Some comments:

English and typos should be checked. Please remove external comments in red colour and Italian language.