An Innovative, Lightweight, and Sustainable Solution for the Integrated Seismic Energy Retrofit of Existing Masonry Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes the use of a lightweight and sustainable solution based on extruded aluminium profiles combined with insulating panels as an innovative way to renovate existing historic masonry buildings. The efficiency associated to the use of this system was evaluated through some experimental tests, which were carried out at the National Institute for Research and Development in Constructions. In the first phase, the out-of-plane behaviour of a masonry panel was evaluated. Then, the same cracked wall was consolidated through the application of the base aluminium profile connected. The results obtained after the retrofitting pointed out the benefits of the system, which allowed the achievement of a greater horizontal force without any lesions on the aluminium components. Finally, after a numerical simulation was set on the 3Muri computer program, a comparison between the results from the software and the real test was performed. It evidenced a good calibration, achieving values very close to the experimental ones and highlighting, therefore, the reliability of the numerical tool. In general, the authors make efforts to present their work and the paper is interesting, but some revisions are required before accept.

1. The research is related to the novel renovating and repairing work. For the Introduction and background section, the reviewer suggests to add some more related literature review of seismic renovating and repairing, see

l  Parametric investigation of the assembled bolt-connected buckling-restrained brace and performance evaluation of its application into structural retrofit[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022, 48: 103988.

l  A stochastic CSM-based displacement-oriented design strategy for the novel precast SRC-UHPC composite braced-frame in the externally attached seismic retrofitting[J]. Composite Structures, 2023, 321: 117308.

2. As for the proposed renovating method, what is the main difference with other renovating method?

3. In the renovating method, do the authors consider the interfacial behavior of masonry wall that can affect the retrofitting performance?

4. In the experimental research, are there any assumptions? How to consider the bound conditions in the actual project? Maybe more words can be given. 

5. Commonly, a hysteretic curve is required for the static performance. It seems that only the monolithic loading or pushover is given. Thus, how do the authors consider this?

6. What are the most important parameters to influence the seismic performance of the renovating technique according to the analysis? How to optimize it in the future construction?

7. How to design the proposed technique?

8. The conclusion is suggested to be further improved (e.g., novelty, limitations, or further investigations).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English Language can be further checked. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I would like to thank the author/s for their effort.

 

Thanks to the author for their hard work on this paper.  The article investigates the efficacy of incorporating aluminum profiles alongside insulating panels into established masonry structures, aiming to enhance the structural integrity and energy efficiency of buildings, particularly in response to seismic activity. But there are some major comments that need from authors to modify it to enhance the research:

 

1-    Abstract: The information provided in the current abstract is unclear, so I would prefer if the author revised it with a stronger focus on the methods and problem.

 

2-    In the Introduction, I suggest that the authors consider distributing the references throughout the paragraphs rather than using ranges of numbers such as [1-6], [7-10], etc., to ensure clarity and precision in citing specific sources for the information presented.

 

3-    In line 84, the author mention that some alternatives have been discussed in [25] but they did not mention that alternatives, so I prefer if they clarify this point for the reader.

 

4-    In the last paragraph of the introduction, spanning lines 102 to 114, it is preferred to maintain a scientific focus rather than a commercial one. Therefore, it is recommended to describe the system (MIL15.s) without mentioning the company name, as the paper aims to test the system rather than promote the company's marketing efforts.

 

5-    It would be better if the author can change the title of section 2 from (Experimental program and test set up) to be (Materials and methods) and rewrite the text under this section to be more coherent and connected with the process steps not just describe for the pictures in different figures.

 

6-    In Figure 12, it would be more helpful if the author can clarify the component of (8-Sandwich panel).

 

7-    The authors ignoring the economic factor in this experiment, it would be great if the author add description to this factor before the conclusion.

 

8-    The conclusion should discuss the result of the whole study and provide a specific and coherent ending for the paper with mention for the future work as next step not describe for what happen in the experiment. For that I would like to suggest if the authors can rewrite the conclusion with more coherent and logic way for the reader.

 

To conclude, I would like to point out that you did a great job and all these comments are intended to encourage the author to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Thank you for your efforts.

 

Best Wishes

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted in the current form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for your valuable time and effort that you spend to respond to my comments. However, still there are some minor comments need to be more clarify for the readers. 

1- Still, the methodology used in this article is not clear in the current format of abstract, so I suggest the authors mention that the methodology was applied through experimental testing and simultaneously specific wall sections details with aluminum profiles.

2- In page 2, line 92, the authors mention the following: "Some alternative have been discussed in [27] and briefly mentioned below" but the authors did not cited [27] in any following paragraph so it will be confused for the reader. For that i would like to suggest if the authors add some alternative that had been discussed in [27] and cited them with reference number [27].

3- when it come to economic factor in this experiment, the authors add one line (266) in page 11 which is not sufficient. for that I recommend if the authors can expand this point with the most updated references. 

To conclude, I would like to point out that you did a great job and all these comments are intended to encourage the author to improve the quality of the paper.

 

Thank you for your efforts.

 

Best Wishes

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx