A Method for the Definition of Emergency Rescue Routes Based on the Out-of-Plane Seismic Collapse of Masonry Infills in Reinforced-Concrete-Framed Buildings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A Method for the Definition of Emergency Rescue Routes based on the Out-of-Plane Seismic Collapse of Mansory Infills in Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings
Manuscript Number:
In the present paper authors proposed method for evaluating the practicability of the strategic road network as well as defining the emergency rescue routes based on the out-of-plane (OOP) seismic collapse of masonry infills (MIs) in reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings. However, the paper requires some minor improvement before it can be recommended for publication, it is proposed to re-submit a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, considering the following comments.
1. Overall recommendation should be reported in one sentence at the end of the abstract
2. Emphasizing the importance of research in introduction
3. The authors should overview the recent progress made in the relevant area in the past two years or so. Such as: · https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78257023 · https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.086 4. The paper is well written and it is easy to follow, only the authors needs to go thoroughly revised version to correct the typo-mistake.5. Author should highlight the assumptions and limitations and future research direction of the study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: In the present paper authors proposed method for evaluating the practicability of the strategic road network as well as defining the emergency rescue routes based on the out-of-plane (OOP) seismic collapse of masonry infills (MIs) in reinforced concrete (RC) framed buildings. However, the paper requires some minor improvement before it can be recommended for publication, it is proposed to re-submit a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, considering the following comments.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable and appropriate comments. Thanks to your suggestions, the authors improved their paper.
Point 2: Overall recommendation should be reported in one sentence at the end of the abstract.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. In order to provide an overall recommendation, the authors modified and improved the last sentence at the end of the abstract (see page 1, lines 23-25 of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 3: Emphasizing the importance of research in introduction.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The authors added some sentences in the Introduction section to better highlight the importance of the research (see page 2, lines 73-74 and lines 79-87 of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 4: The authors should overview the recent progress made in the relevant area in the past two years or so. Such as: https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-78257023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.12.086
Response 4: The authors thank you for the valuable suggestions. The authors added new references in the Introduction section (see page 2, lines 93-95, of the marked revised manuscript) and modified the References according to this change (see page 26, references 14 and 15, of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 5: The paper is well written and it is easy to follow, only the authors needs to go thoroughly revised version to correct the typo-mistake.
Response 5: The authors thank you for your comment and feedback about the proposed work.
Point 6: Author should highlight the assumptions and limitations and future research direction of the study.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. The authors agreed with you. According to your comment, the authors modified the last paragraph of the Section 4.3 in order to highlight the assumptions, limititations and further developments of the proposed research (see page 24, lines 650-666 of the marked revised manuscript).
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is interesting and generally well written.
According to this reviewer the paper can published.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The paper is interesting and generally well written. According to this reviewer the paper can published.
Response 1: The authors kindly thank you for your positive feedback about the proposed research work.
Reviewer 3 Report
In line 262, it is mentioned that "Beams are considered as infinitely stiff in bending." However, in line 363, the ultimate bending moment is assigned to beam ends. If the beams are infinitely stiff in bending, why is the ultimate bending moment necessary?
In line 421, "sufficient contrast" might be the mistake for "sufficient contact".
From Figure 12, the backbone curve of Lmax is larger than that of Lmin, but there is no enough explanation for this. Usually the strength of masonry is related to the thickness of the wall, not the bay length. Please add reasonable explanation.
In line 495, "acceleration results" might be the mistake for "velocity results".
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: In line 262, it is mentioned that "Beams are considered as infinitely stiff in bending." However, in line 363, the ultimate bending moment is assigned to beam ends. If the beams are infinitely stiff in bending, why is the ultimate bending moment necessary?
Response 1: The authors thank you for your valuable comment. According to this, the authors clarified this aspect modifying the manuscript (see page 11, lines 371-374, of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 2: In line 421, "sufficient contrast" might be the mistake for "sufficient contact".
Response 2: In the original paper there was a mistake. The authors apologize for the inconvenience and correct the mistake in the revised manuscript (see page 14, line 431, of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 3: From Figure 12, the backbone curve of Lmax is larger than that of Lmin, but there is no enough explanation for this. Usually, the strength of masonry is related to the thickness of the wall, not the bay length. Please add reasonable explanation.
Response 3: The authors thank you for this valuable suggestion. The authors added new sentence in the revised manuscript in order to better clarify this point (see page 14, lines 444-449, of the marked revised manuscript).
Point 4: In line 495, "acceleration results" might be the mistake for "velocity results".
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The authors corrected this mistake in the paper (see page 16, line 510, of the marked revised manuscript).
