Damage Assessment of Historical Masonry Churches Subjected to Moderate Intensity Seismic Shaking
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor
In this paper, seismic behavior of 14 historical masonry churches, based on in situ observations, are qualitatively investigated when subjected to February, 24th ,2020 earthquake . It would be interesting and may be valuable and helpful results for future decision making. However the results, by itself, is not reliable because the effect of some of the most important characteristics of the ground motion record which significantly affect the results are neglected:
- Computing dominant frequencies of the ground motion record and comparing those with fundamental frequency of the historical buildings which significantly affects the intensity of dynamic response is neglected.
- Due to close distance to epicenter, the near field effect such as forward directivity is potentially probable in the site of some buildings. thus, this phenomenon, which is neglected in this study, can be the cause of the severe damage some historical building experienced.
- Site soil condition, which is ignored in the present study, is one of the most important parameter considerably affects damages suffered by buildings during the seismic event.
- Some structural characteristics such as plan irregularity and the ratio of the load-bearing wall area in each direction to plan area are important parameters frequently implemented in seismic design code to quantify vulnerability of masonry building under seismic loading. It suggested these parameters are considered along with other geometrical parameters addressed in this study.
- Language of the manuscript is not fluent. it is strongly suggested to be carefully revised.
Author Response
Dear REVIEWER 5
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for evaluation of my manuscript. I do appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Considering your overall assessment, please allow me to address your comments (in bold italic) point by point, as presented below.
Additions to the text has been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
In this paper, seismic behavior of 14 historical masonry churches, based on in situ observations, are qualitatively investigated when subjected to February, 24th ,2020 earthquake . It would be interesting and may be valuable and helpful results for future decision making. However the results, by itself, is not reliable because the effect of some of the most important characteristics of the ground motion record which significantly affect the results are neglected: Computing dominant frequencies of the ground motion record and comparing those with fundamental frequency of the historical buildings which
significantly affects the intensity of dynamic response is neglected. Due to close distance to epicenter, the near field effect such as forward directivity is potentially probable in the site of some buildings. thus, this phenomenon, which is neglected in this study, can be the cause of the severe damage some historical building experienced. Site soil condition, which is ignored in the present study, is one of the most important parameter considerably affects damages suffered by buildings during the seismic event. Some structural characteristics such as plan irregularity and the ratio of the load-bearing wall area in each direction to plan area are important parameters frequently implemented in seismic design code to quantify vulnerability of masonry building under seismic loading. It suggested these parameters are considered along with other geometrical parameters addressed in this study. Language of the manuscript is not fluent. it is strongly suggested to be carefully revised.
The study disregards detailed analyzes of site effects that go beyond the limits set by the paper: damage analysis by a rapid visual screening. However, information regarding the local seismic response have been provided in paragraph 3.1.4. The homogeneity of the damage detected leads to presuming correlations between the response of the constructions and near-field effects due to the proximity of the seismic source.
Furthermore, as required, data have been added on an important factor which is the wall density in the two main directions, see table 3 and related observations contained in paragraph 3.1.1 Typological and geometrical features. In this last section, data regarding the plan regularity have been added.
The language of the manuscript has been carefully revised as suggested.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the paper “Damage Assessment of Historical Masonry Churches Subjected to Moderate Intensity Seismic Shaking” by Nicola Ruggieri. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the sustainability, but some revisions should be made. Here are my comments.
1- The language needs check and revision.
2- The mechanical properties of the materials used in the walls for each church. should be provided.
3-It is recommended to determine the ratio of load bearing walls in each of the orthogonal directions in plan.
4-More detailed should be provided for the buildings.
5- The literature review in introduction is thorough and it is well written, however some additional references listing below could be added in the introduction.
Seismic assessment, behavior and retrofit of heritage buildings and monuments. Vol. 37. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2015. "Seismic performance assessment of three masonry churches through FE simulations." AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1863. No. 1. AIP Publishing LLC, 2017. "Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of historical masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua." Engineering Failure Analysis 92 (2018): 495-519. "Seismic vulnerability of historical orthodox churches in Romania: numerical modelling and retrofit solutions." IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Vol. 586. No. 1. IOP Publishing, 2019. "Applying adaptive pushover analysis to estimate incremental dynamic analysis curve." Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami 14.04 (2020): 2050016. "Integrated seismic vulnerability assessment of historical masonry churches including architectural and artistic assets based on macro-element approach." International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2020): 1-14.
Author Response
Dear REVIEWER 1
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for evaluation of my manuscript. I do appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Considering your overall assessment, please allow me to address your comments (in bold italic) point by point, as presented below.
Additions to the text has been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
I have reviewed the paper “Damage Assessment of Historical Masonry Churches Subjected to Moderate Intensity Seismic Shaking” by Nicola Ruggieri. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the sustainability, but some revisions should be made. Here are my comments.
- The language needs check and revision.
The language of the manuscript has been carefully revised as suggested
- The mechanical properties of the materials used in the walls for each church. should be provided.
A table (4) with the mechanical properties, according to the Italian “Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617 - Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle “Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni” di cui al D.M. 14 gennaio 2008”, has been added,.
- It is recommended to determine the ratio of load bearing walls in each of the orthogonal directions in plan.
As requested, data have been added on an important factor which is the wall density in the two main directions, see table 3 and related observations contained in paragraph 3.1.1 Typological and geometrical features.
- More detailed should be provided for the buildings.
Details on the configuration of the buildings and on the regularity in the plan, in addition to other geometric data have been added. Further information on the site soil condition are given in the paper.
- The literature review in introduction is thorough and it is well written, however some additional references listing below could be added in the introduction.
The suggested references have been added.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled "DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL MASONRY CHURCHES SUBJECTED TO MODERATE INTENSITY SEISMIC SHAKING" is very interesting. I suggest only few corrections:
- in my opinion in chapter 2 presentation of most important moments in history (as a graph) can be advantageous for the paper;
- there is a lack of critical discussion about results presented in the paper (it's mainly summary of results)- please complete chapter 4;
- please check literature.
Author Response
Dear REVIEWER 2
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for evaluation of my manuscript. I do appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Considering your overall assessment, please allow me to address your comments (in bold italic) point by point, as presented below.
Additions to the text has been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
The paper entitled "DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL MASONRY CHURCHES SUBJECTED TO MODERATE INTENSITY SEISMIC SHAKING" is very interesting. I suggest only few corrections:
- in my opinion in chapter 2 presentation of most important moments in history (as a graph) can be advantageous for the paper;
A graph (Diagram 2) that emphasizes the main events in the history of the Cosenza’s Churches has been added.
- there is a lack of critical discussion about results presented in the paper (it's mainly summary of results)- please complete chapter 4;
Further considerations regarding the influence on the building’s seismic behaviour of the wall density, the masonry shear strength and the structural regularity have been added.
- please check literature
Further references have been added:
Psycharis, I. N., Pantazopoulou, S. J., Papadrakakis, M. (Eds.), Seismic assessment, behavior and retrofit of heritage buildings and monuments. Vol. 37. Springer, (2015), Berlin, Germany.
Milani, G., Shehu, R., Valente M., Seismic performance assessment of three masonry churches through FE simulations, AIP Conference Proceedings 1863, 450014 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4992623
Milani, G., Shehu, R., Valente M., Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of historical masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua." Engineering Failure Analysis 92 (2018): 495-519.
Bârnaure, M., Coman M., Marcu, D., Seismic vulnerability of historical orthodox churches in Romania: numerical modelling and retrofit solutions, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 586, Computational Civil Engineering Conference (CCE2019) 30–31 May 2019, Iasi, Romania
Sangiorgio, V., Uva, G., Adam J., M., Integrated Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historical Masonry Churches Including Architectural and Artistic Assets Based on Macro-element Approach, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, (2020): 1-14 DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1709916
Benedetti, D. and Petrini, V. , Sulla Vulnerabilità Di Edifici in Muratura: Proposta Di Un Metodo Di Valutazione, L’industria delle Costruzioni, Vol. 149, No. 1, (1984), pp. 66-74.
Pardalopoulos I., Pantazopuolou, S. J., Konthari, M., Rapid Seismic procedure of masonry building with historical value, July 2015 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16130-3_5, in Psycharis, I., Pantazopoulou, SJ., Papadrakakis, M., (Eds), Seismic Assessment, Behavior and Retrofit of Heritage Buildings and Monuments Edition, Springer Engineering Book Series (2015).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, 2nd edn., FEMA 154, Washington, DC, (2002).
Tomazevic, M., Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press, London, (1999).
Kramer, S. L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson, 1996
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper presents the damage assessment based on the field observation of masonry churches in Cosenza province. The paper is well written; however, some parts may need to be improved before publication:
1/ This is a research case study; hence, the title should be modified that limits the churches into the province of Cosenza.
2/ The abstract is quite long, some unnecessary parts should be removed.
3/ Sections 1 and 2 should be merged.
4/ Please number the equations and use the equation style for all the equations and notations.
5/ Please check the format from lines 76 to 84.
6/ Section 3 should be renamed to fit its following content.
7/ Please present the novelty of the methodology presented in Section 3 based on a literature review. References should be added.
8/ Subsection 3.4 may make confusion. How the damage levels are defined.
9/ The conclusions should be rewritten focusing on the main outcome of the study.
10/ Please carefully structure the paper for easily approaching from the readers.
Author Response
Dear REVIEWER 3
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for evaluation of my manuscript. I do appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Considering your overall assessment, please allow me to address your comments (in bold italic) point by point, as presented below.
Additions to the text has been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
The paper presents the damage assessment based on the field observation of masonry churches in Cosenza province. The paper is well written; however, some parts may need to be improved before publication:
1/ This is a research case study; hence, the title should be modified that limits the churches into the province of Cosenza.
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL MASONRY CHURCHES SUBJECTED TO MODERATE INTENSITY SEISMIC SHAKING: THE CASE STUDY OF THE COSENZA EARTHQUAKE OF FEBRUARY 24TH 2020 is it perhaps too long?
2/ The abstract is quite long, some unnecessary parts should be removed.
Some parts of the abstract has been erased
3/ Sections 1 and 2 should be merged.
The two sections have been merged as suggested
4/ Please number the equations and use the equation style for all the equations and notations.
The equation style has been used, furthermore the equations have been numbered
5/ Please check the format from lines 76 to 84
(OK).
6/ Section 3 should be renamed to fit its following content.
Section 3 has been renamed “Materials and methods for the seismic response assessment and the sections has been reorganised .
7/ Please present the novelty of the methodology presented in Section 3 based on a literature review.
References should be added. The novelty of the methodology was added in paragraph 3.1 with additional references.
8/ Subsection 3.4 may make confusion. How the damage levels are defined.
The expert screening has defined location (considering the portions of masonry involved) extent and severity of the cracking and deformation pattern which allowed, by comparison, to define the level of damage reported.
9/ The conclusions should be rewritten focusing on the main outcome of the study.
The conclusions have been extended by reporting the main outcome deriving from the proposed study.
10/ Please carefully structure the paper for easily approaching from the readers.
The paper has been reorganized for the sake of the readers ... actually it was a bit confusing. The introduction has been reorganized by combining state of the art and introduction of the old version; a new section has been created (The survey according to "A-DC Scheda chiesa") and in material and methods a paragraph on seismical parameters with two subsections has been added: Typological and geometrical features and Masonry and floors features
Reviewer 5 Report
The abstract entered in the form differs of the abstract in the full paper and display repetitions. Please check, as the abstract in the full paper is good.
The introduction is missunderstood. It provides an introduction to the case study, with images. This is not proper. Instead, there shall be an introduction engaging with similar studies to this case study (ie "retrofitting" with change of stiffness, ex. RC) in case of other earthquakes, possibly also in Italy, for the case of churches. Some studies are mentioned later on (ex. Lagomarsino), but the review of literature shall be introduced at the begin, explaining the gaps in research and the way the paper will deal in its structure. The the event description can follow and the state of the art related to the case study as they are. Such a review will expand also the references list, which is narrow.
The empirical part is proper and can remain as it is.
The discussion part shall refer also to the review at the begin and this can also lead to a slight expansion of the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear REVIEWER 4
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for evaluation of my manuscript. I do appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions. Considering your overall assessment, please allow me to address your comments (in bold italic) point by point, as presented below.
Additions to the text has been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript.
The abstract entered in the form differs of the abstract in the full paper and display repetitions. Please check, as the abstract in the full paper is good.
The abstract has been corrected and some parts have been erased
The introduction is missunderstood. It provides an introduction to the case study, with images. This is not proper. Instead, there shall be an introduction engaging with similar studies to this case study (ie "retrofitting" with change of stiffness, ex. RC) in case of other earthquakes, possibly also in Italy, for the case of churches. Some studies are mentioned later on (ex. Lagomarsino), but the review of literature shall be introduced at the begin, explaining the gaps in research and the way the paper will deal in its structure. The the event description can follow and the state of the art related to the case study as they are. Such a review will expand also the references list, which is narrow.
The introduction has been reorganised by combining state of the art and introduction of the old version and further references has been added as suggested:
Psycharis, I. N., Pantazopoulou, S. J., Papadrakakis, M. (Eds.), Seismic assessment, behavior and retrofit of heritage buildings and monuments. Vol. 37. Springer, (2015), Berlin, Germany.
Milani, G., Shehu, R., Valente M., Seismic performance assessment of three masonry churches through FE simulations, AIP Conference Proceedings 1863, 450014 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4992623
Milani, G., Shehu, R., Valente M., Damage assessment and partial failure mechanisms activation of historical masonry churches under seismic actions: three case studies in Mantua." Engineering Failure Analysis 92 (2018): 495-519.
Bârnaure, M., Coman M., Marcu, D., Seismic vulnerability of historical orthodox churches in Romania: numerical modelling and retrofit solutions, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 586, Computational Civil Engineering Conference (CCE2019) 30–31 May 2019, Iasi, Romania
Sangiorgio, V., Uva, G., Adam J., M., Integrated Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Historical Masonry Churches Including Architectural and Artistic Assets Based on Macro-element Approach, International Journal of Architectural Heritage, (2020): 1-14 DOI: 10.1080/15583058.2019.1709916
Benedetti, D. and Petrini, V. , Sulla Vulnerabilità Di Edifici in Muratura: Proposta Di Un Metodo Di Valutazione, L’industria delle Costruzioni, Vol. 149, No. 1, (1984), pp. 66-74.
Pardalopoulos I., Pantazopuolou, S. J., Konthari, M., Rapid Seismic procedure of masonry building with historical value, July 2015 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16130-3_5, in Psycharis, I., Pantazopoulou, SJ., Papadrakakis, M., (Eds), Seismic Assessment, Behavior and Retrofit of Heritage Buildings and Monuments Edition, Springer Engineering Book Series (2015).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook, 2nd edn., FEMA 154, Washington, DC, (2002).
Tomazevic, M., Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press, London, (1999).
Kramer, S. L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Pearson, 1996
The empirical part is proper and can remain as it is.
The discussion part shall refer also to the review at the begin and this can also lead to a slight expansion of the conclusions.
The conclusions have been extended by reporting the main outcome deriving from the proposed study.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for your efforts and time dedicated for revising the manuscript according to the comments.
Author Response
Thank you again
SIncerely
