The Failure of Masonry Walls by Disaggregation and the Masonry Quality Index
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research looks like interesting in masonry structures and heritage buildings preservation in Central-South Europe.
Some comments:
a. In general terms, the articles is well structured. However, where is the aim of the paper? I could not found it. Please clarify the main objective of the study.
b. Line 227. Please specify: "The MQI method, as proposed and described in Borri and De Maria [21], is based on the visual 227 analysis of 7 parameters (identified by the symbols SM, SD, SS, WC, HJ, VJ and MM)." What SM, SD, SS, WC, HJ, VJ and MM means?
c. Are they symbols? or parameters/factors/variables?
d. Lines 233-240. Could it be explained in a new Table?
e. Line 263. "In the Italian Seismic Code...". Please, include reference.
f. Figure 6. Could its quality be improved?
g. Has been the model previously validated? In which case studies? Where? Italy? Spain? Portugal? heritage structures in these countries present similarities. However, seismic affections is higher in Italy, although South Spain also present seismic risks (Lorca earthquake 2011).
h. A scheme of the methodology would improve considerably the reading of the paper.
i. How the authors could evaluate the tuff stone building in Tuscania Italy (Figure 12). The pictures is dated in 1971. Please, explain this assumption.
j. Are the Authors the owners of all pictures show in Figures 8-17?
k. Is the method only based on the Italian Seismic Code?
l. Is the method designed from Italy for Italy? or could it be extrapolated to another emplacement in Europe or around the World?
m. Conclusions are really poor. Please, improve this section with lessons learned from the paper.
n. English could be improved or revised by a native.
Author Response
The research looks like interesting in masonry structures and heritage buildings preservation in Central-South Europe.
Response: The authors greatly appreciate your time in reviewing the manuscript and providing useful comments. All of the comments were valuable and the authors have attempted to implement them all in the revised manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. This document contains the responses to each reviewers’ comments. For clarity, the reviewers’ comments are shown in yellow and the authors’ responses are shown in italic. An annotated manuscript is included following the response to comments. In this manuscript, comments are included to note major revisions and new sections.
Some comments:
- In general terms, the articles is well structured. However, where is the aim of the paper? I could not found it. Please clarify the main objective of the study.
Response: This was added “This on-going project, with the main aim being to provide an effective, quick and easy to use, tool for professionals working in conservation engineering to the challenges resulting from the structural assessment of existing building stock. The MQI can provide useful information about critical mechanical properties of historic masonry, and the most likely failure mode under the action of an earthquake.”
- Line 227. Please specify: "The MQI method, as proposed and described in Borri and De Maria [21], is based on the visual 227 analysis of 7 parameters (identified by the symbols SM, SD, SS, WC, HJ, VJ and MM)." What SM, SD, SS, WC, HJ, VJ and MM means?
Response: Text has been amended to explain this “The MQI method, as proposed and described in Borri and De Maria [21], is based on the visual analysis of 7 parameters [identified by the acronyms SM, SD, SS, WC, HJ, VJ and MM (see Appendix A)]”, meaning is also given at lines 236-243.
- Are they symbols? or parameters/factors/variables?
Response: thank for noting this, these are parameters to calculate.
- Lines 233-240. Could it be explained in a new Table?
Response: thank you for noting, this has been included in a new Table.
- Line 263. "In the Italian Seismic Code...". Please, include reference.
Reference has been added. Thank you for noting.
- Figure 6. Could its quality be improved?
Response: Unfortunately no, this is because they are Photograms. We are sorry for this.
- Has been the model previously validated? In which case studies? Where? Italy? Spain? Portugal? heritage structures in these countries present similarities. However, seismic affections is higher in Italy, although South Spain also present seismic risks (Lorca earthquake 2011).
Response: Based on the multi-decennial experience of the authors, the MQI method has been validated using a large number of masonry buildings in Italy (mainly in Umbria, Latium, Marche, Abruzzi and Emilia).
- A scheme of the methodology would improve considerably the reading of the paper.
Response: Yes, Thank you for this comment, we added it
- How the authors could evaluate the tuff stone building in Tuscania Italy (Figure 12). The pictures is dated in 1971. Please, explain this assumption.
Response: only from the pictures, however this is consistent with the method (this is a visual method)
- Are the Authors the owners of all pictures show in Figures 8-17?
Response: Yes, we are.
- Is the method only based on the Italian Seismic Code?
Response: Not completely. The basic concept of the method (i.e. analysis of the rules of the art) is clearly non-dependent from national buildings codes or the masonry typologies under investigation. Text ha been amended to highlight this.
- Is the method designed from Italy for Italy? or could it be extrapolated to another emplacement in Europe or around the World?
Response: although the method is based on the masonry typologies included in the Italian building code, its validity and effectiveness could be easily extended to a much larger territory. The Italian masonry typologies are not substantially different from the ones of many European and Middle East countries.
- Conclusions are really poor. Please, improve this section with lessons learned from the paper.
Response: thank you for noting this. Text has been fully revised adding: “Although the MQI method is based on the masonry typologies suggested by the Italian building code, its practicability and validity could be surely extended to a much larger territory. The Italian masonry typologies are not substantially different from the ones of many European and Middle East countries [1, 16]. An effort will be necessary to calibrate the MQI method for other masonry typologies around the world, but the basic concept of the method (i.e. analysis of the rules of the art) is clearly non-dependent from national buildings codes or the masonry typologies under investigation.”
- English could be improved or revised by a native.
Response: thank you for noting this. Text has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting article in which the authors satisfactorily parameterize the risk of earthquake collapse of buildings of historical interest, whose materials and construction methods are not subject to modern standards.
I recommend to be published with a few minor revisions, as follows.
line 456: replace "a Table" with "Table 2"
line 508: replace "Figure 6" with "Figure 7"
line 511: replace "dashed" with "red"
Author Response
This is a very interesting article in which the authors satisfactorily parameterize the risk of earthquake collapse of buildings of historical interest, whose materials and construction methods are not subject to modern standards.
I recommend to be published with a few minor revisions, as follows.
Response: The authors greatly appreciate your time in reviewing the manuscript and providing useful comments. All of the comments were valuable and the authors have attempted to implement them all in the revised manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. This document contains the responses to each reviewers’ comments. For clarity, the reviewers’ comments are shown in yellow and the authors’ responses are shown in italic. An annotated manuscript is included following the response to comments. In this manuscript, comments are included to note major revisions and new sections.
line 456: replace "a Table" with "Table 2"
Response: Thank you for noting this, corrected.
line 508: replace "Figure 6" with "Figure 7"
Response: Thank you for noting this, corrected.
line 511: replace "dashed" with "red"
Response: Thank you for noting this, corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic is very interesting and up to date. Seismic assessment of masonry is very interesting topic because of vast amount of masonry buildings in seismic voulnerable areas in Europe and in the rest of the world. MQI method developed by the authors is here extended and gives a good tool for seismic assessment of historical masonry buildings. The paper is written in very good english and the topic is presented very clearly and deep. So, the paper is suitable for publication and it could be categorized as original scientific paper.
Author Response
The topic is very interesting and up to date. Seismic assessment of masonry is very interesting topic because of vast amount of masonry buildings in seismic voulnerable areas in Europe and in the rest of the world. MQI method developed by the authors is here extended and gives a good tool for seismic assessment of historical masonry buildings. The paper is written in very good english and the topic is presented very clearly and deep. So, the paper is suitable for publication and it could be categorized as original scientific paper.
Response: The authors greatly appreciate your time in reviewing the manuscript and providing useful comments. All of the comments were valuable and the authors have attempted to implement them all in the revised manuscript to improve the quality of the paper. This document contains the responses to each reviewers’ comments. For clarity, the reviewers’ comments are shown in yellow and the authors’ responses are shown in italic. An annotated manuscript is included following the response to comments. In this manuscript, comments are included to note major revisions and new sections.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for all of your answers. However, I would like to underline two more points:
a) I think the paper is interesting, but after this revision the Authors do not rewrite and do not rethink the conclusions, lessons learned and possible future researches. Authors have a lot of information, which they need to synthetise in last section (conclusions).
b) Normally in scientific papers, conclusions section do not have references.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment, we have enriched the conclusions with more comments and points. The main parameters affecting the quality of a wall have been summarized in the conclusions as well a better definition of the masonry disaggregation phenomenon. As better stated in the conclusions, the causes of the disaggregation phenomenon have been underestimated or neglected by researchers and professionals, working in Conservation Engineering. This could negatively affect the assessment of the structural safety of existing masonry buildings: structural engineers and architects, dealing with the assessment of the structural safety of existing buildings, should be aware that the phenomenon of masonry disaggregation can be initiated by lower seismic forces, than the forces needed to activate a macro-element mechanism.
