Efficiency Assessment of Urban Road Networks Connecting Critical Node Pairs under Seismic Hazard

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, your paper titled "Efficiency Assessment of Urban Road Networks Connecting Critical Node Pairs under Seismic Hazard" captivated my interest. Here are some thoughts to possibly enrich your work:

 The introduction sets a robust groundwork, linking the resilience of infrastructure to sustainable development, especially relevant to UN Sustainable Development Goal 9. It adeptly ties the necessity for efficient road networks with economic and environmental sustainability, providing a solid backdrop for your research aims.

 Consider elaborating on earlier studies or existing gaps that align, closely with your topic. This will offer a more engaging narrative that bridges these gaps with the goals of your current work. Also, mentioning the expected impact or the novelty of your methodology early on could also fortify the introduction.

 Your literature review proficiently compiles studies on the seismic impacts on road networks, damage detection, and subsequent assessments. Yet, it primarily touches on broader concepts and the value of a multi-disciplinary approach without focusing much on specific past methodologies. It might be beneficial to offer a deeper critique or comparison of previous models and methodologies, underlining their shortcomings and how your study addresses these issues. Also, I will suggest you that adding more recent studies could better reflect the latest research trends in this area.

 In the methodology section, the detailed framework you've used to evaluate the road network's efficiency after seismic events is impressive, especially the incorporation of GIS for modeling and the application of seismic vulnerability models. The clear, precise explanation of how various variables and scenarios are simulated is commendable. Introducing more visuals or flowcharts could further aid in understanding the methodology's sequential steps.

 The results, illustrated with case studies from Naples and Turin, showcase practical applications of your methodology effectively. The scenarios used to exhibit different outcomes and efficiencies of the road network under varied seismic conditions are particularly insightful. Discussing any unexpected findings or anomalies in the data and their broader implications could enrich this section.

 Lastly, the conclusion revisits the theme of disaster resilience and the management of road networks in urban planning. It succinctly recaps the findings, noting the potential decline in road network efficiency under various seismic scenarios and underscores the adaptability of the methodology.

Also, offering more detailed recommendations for future research, perhaps pinpointing specific geographic areas or infrastructure types for further study, could be useful. Additionally, exploring the practical implications of your findings for urban planners and policymakers, and how this methodology could be integrated into existing planning and disaster management practices, would provide valuable insights.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our point-by-point response, thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is comprehensive in its coverage of fresh and hardened properties relating to inclusion of recycled aggregates into waste PFC. The relevant research work is of great significance.

 

However, the following comments should be addressed:

1. some spelling mistake, such as “fibres” in line 19 and many other places.

2.The aesthetics of the paper chart should be improved

3. There are 7 conclusions in this manuscript, which should be further condensed.

 

to sum up，this manuscript is suggested as minor revise.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression of this paper is very poor, and the language needs to be carefully polished.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

please find our reply to your comments and remarks in the attached pdf.

Best regards,

the Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your great efforts.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.