Fragility and Seismic Performance Assessment of RC Frames Under Chinese and Pakistani Building Codes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion the paper could be published after the following revisions:

• It is well-known that the seismic behavior of RC frame buildings strongly depends on the distribution and the properties of masonry infills. It seems that the authors neglected their influence during both the initial design and the non-linear analysis of the frames. Obviously, accounting for infills could diversify the results. The authors should clearly state this limitation of their study.
• The authors report that they used 54 pairs of ground motions derived from 18 records. It is not clear how these pairs are obtained. Please clarify. Furthermore, have you examined alternative orientations of the seismic excitations?
• The authors report in Tables 3 and 4 significant differences in member cross-sections and reinforcements resulting from the two codes. To which specific code provisions can these differences be attributed? Could the authors provide further explanations?
• The authors report many times in the text that the Chinese code is more conservative and stringent than the Pakistani one. However, this statement is not consistent to the data presented in Tables 3 and 4, since the Pakistani code leads, in general, to larger dimensions and reinforcement area. Please clarify.
• Presenting the natural periods and modal participating mass ratios of the buildings in section 4.1 would be useful.
• Please provide additional information about structural modeling. For example, have you considered the moment-axial force interaction and how?
• Please ensure that all abbreviations and symbols are explained and all figures are cited in the text.
• Providing some brief quantitative results in the abstract and in the conclusions would enhance the quality of the paper.
• Line 175: Table 1 instead of Table 2.

Author Response

Please find the attached file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please find the attached file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a 'simple' study, yet very useful to practitioners and regulators in the specific countries addressed. I have a major concern about not considering the presence of infills so the Authors should at least mention and discuss it. 

Specific comments in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find the attached file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

-

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am OK with most of the changes carried out by the Authors.