Proposal for the Preparation of New Building Standards in Poland to Protect against Earthquakes in the Next 50 Years

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents findings on earthquake protection measures implemented in buildings in Poland. The outcomes hold potential for aiding the development of regional building codes to enhance seismic resistance. Before publication, the author should address the following comments:

 

1) The introduction currently resembles background information and requires improvement to adhere to academic logic. It should clearly present the objectives and novelty of the study.

 

2) Graphs (Figures 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15) and Table 1 need improvement as they lack clarity.

 

3) The paper should elaborate on how the vulnerability of infrastructures in the investigated area was considered and whether this leads to a change in the assessment of seismic risk. Can I use the method you mentioned in other area? How to use it?

 

4) The methodology should clarify how the 'Loss' is quantified.

 

5) Section 1 should include a review of relevant international codes.

 

6) How do you consider the disaster chain?

The paper lacks the structure of a typical academic article and requires better organization to effectively present the research findings.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, 
I have made a correction,
I hope that now the paper will be accepted

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explores The proposition for preparing new norms for buildings in Poland for protection before earthquakes in the next 50 years. The title fit to the aim and scope of the journal Building.

The Comments are as follows.

(i) The Problem statement, Significance and impact of the work are missing in the Abstract.

(ii) List the specific keywords related to your research

(iii) Too many small paragrapghs are there in Introduction Section. Merge these paragrapgh wherever necessary.

(iv) Fig 6, 13. The countries names are not readable.

(v) Elaborate the methodologies

(vi) Change the section title 4 to Results and Discussion.

(vii) Don’t do citation in Conclusion section

(viii) Show you research recommendations in Conclusion sections

After doing a thorough peer review, It is recommended to do major change.

Just minor editing is enough

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, 
I have made a correction,
I hope that now the paper will be accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

Good and valuable research has been done.

 The topic is very practical and important

 This paper mentions that: This article aims to implement new building standards for residential and industrial construction in Poland to protect against earthquakes. For more than 20 years, Europe has been experiencing an increasing number of earthquakes. Failure to prepare residential and industrial buildings for such an event can result in extensive damage, deaths, and injuries. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask what losses Poland could suffer even after a single strong earthquake. The estimation of losses after such an event is presented. It is crucial for many buildings and mines in Poland. It is also essential to prepare the population for such an event. What is more, it is also crucial for many Central European countries, as governments have not conducted any training on how to behave during an earthquake. The lack of such training could lead to panic during such an event. Poland is rich in natural resources, with many coal and lignite mines. A strong quake can be a threat to these, as well as to residential, public, industrial and other buildings. The article provides an overview of earthquake events in Europe concerning events worldwide and suggests solutions based on the experience of other countries.

In the opinion of the reviewer, this manuscript note could be accepted after the major revisions and re-evaluation.

      1-     It needs a lot of corrections

    2-   Good and comprehensive explanations are provided in the technical section.

3-     Authors are recommended to discuss the obtained results with literature in more detail.

4-     Considering the importance of part “Methodology” section, it is recommended to provide more complete explanations in this regard.

            5-     he quality of some figures is low. It is suggested to use higher quality figures.

            6-     Some of the references provided are old. It is suggested that a number of recent papers that are new and have been published in the last five years be used in the introduction and references list.

            7-     References are not usually used in the conclusion section

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, 
I have made a correction, in this paper are cited articles from the last 5 years,
and that all images have been corrected based on the original articles. 
I hope that now the paper will be accepted

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author should upload his reponse letter.

SHould improve.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback

I have corrected this paper, I hope you will accept it for publication. 

 

1. The introduction currently resembles background information and requires improvement to adhere to academic logic. It should clearly present the objectives and novelty of the study.

In the introduction I asked the question

The fundamental question is Was another critical infrastructure for the Polish economy: railways, roads, power grids, and pipelines designed to be earthquake resistant?

So that later in the methodology to use the experience of other countries in the protection of people and buildings from earthquakes

 

2. Graphs (Figures 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15) and Table 1 need improvement as they lack clarity.

All the drawings have been corrected, subjected to graphic correction, are posted so that they are related to the text, and are legible, to the size of an A4 page

 

3. The paper should elaborate on how the vulnerability of infrastructures in the investigated area was considered and whether this leads to a change in the assessment of seismic risk. Can I use the method you mentioned in other area? How to use it?

The previous opinion of 2000 that Poland is a seismic region is cited, but more recent studies of 2020 clearly indicate that this is an unstated position. Therefore, the potential economic losses that can be expected, with strong shocks, are shown.

and it is described here as:

The vulnerability of buildings and infrastructure may be high (because they were de-signed without consideration of seismic design codes) and may increase as buildings age and require structural retrofitting.
Seismic risk is not considered a priority in Poland. In order to persuade actions and policies to prepare for and mitigate impacts, it may be necessary to propose a multi-hazard and multipurpose action (e.g., preparedness for seismic events as part of a multi-hazard preparedness campaign that also touches on extreme weather events, pandemics, seismic retrofitting as part of energy efficiency renovations, and others).

it's  

microznization, described in Part 4, which uses Historical earthquakes and existing information. I did this by presenting the results of the study of the location of the Teisseyre-Tornquist zone, because when there was an earthquake in 1977, the question was asked by what route the energy that caused the palpable tremors throughout the country reached Poland.

 

        4. The methodology should clarify how the 'Loss' is quantified.

By the term loss is meant any unexpected event that generates high restoration expenses. A loss is not a planned expense, for the sudden need to finance the loss of assets.
 Here it is shown in Table 3 using 2019 estimates, updating them based on the 2020 earthquake risk map of Poland.

 

       5. Section 1 should include a review of relevant international codes.

Is a reference in the words: The authors of this work analyses suggest applying this new standard to unique and monumental structures (e.g., nuclear power plants or large dams) [7].

Based on Eurocode 8 standard

The authors of the 2007 paper were the first to ask whether further shocks might be repeated.  This was confirmed in 2010.

 

This is in the summary so as not to repeat the same words twice. In the introduction there is a general mention of it, with these words.

 

6. How do you consider the disaster chain?

Shock - damage to infrastructure and buildings, - loss of housing and jobs for the population - famine - great social unrest-.

But the state can act in such a way that it prepares the infrastructure and society,

Then, during an earthquake, the buildings will remain stable and structurally whole, and society will not succumb to panic, because it will see how to behave both at home and in the workplace.

Any disregard of the threat avenges itself with high costs. This was the case before the 1997 floods.

Expenditure of money on dikes was saved, because it was believed that such a flood as there was in the Oder River basin in 1907 happens very rarely. It was assumed to be once every 100 years. Meanwhile, the flood was 90 years since the previous one. Then another one in 2010. But some of the solutions that were introduced after the 1997 flood have been already in place.
The same may be true of earthquakes.
Since they were on the TTZ fault in 2010, and we have information that occasionally there are earthquakes in the Vrancea seismic zone. It is not legitimate to ask if there will be, but when there will be another strong quake.
As I wrote in the introduction: the rupture of tectonic plates under the Indian Ocean and near Coke Island, changed the stability of all tectonic plates. And all tectonic plates have accelerated their displacement.

 

Sincerely

Krzysztof

 

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments have been addressed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I have corrected this paper, I hope you will accept it for publication. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The desired corrections have been made. In my opinion, the article can be accepted.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I have corrected this paper, I hope you will accept it for publication. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has replied to my comments.

Please check the grammar of the paper.