Experimental Campaign of a Low-Cost and Replaceable System for Passive Energy Dissipation in Precast Concrete Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with experimental tests on an innovative low cost devices for seismic protection of r.c. precast buildings. Three levels of tests are described together with a wide discussion on results.
The manuscript is focused on a relevant and interesting topic of seismic structures. The tests are well described and the results are clearly illustrated.
The paper does not deal with numerical modeling, thus the title should be modified: “Experimental campaign on of a low-cost and replaceable system for passive energy dissipation in precast concrete structures"
The paper lacks referencs on low cost seismic devices, thus it occurs to add at lines 56-57 further references as
1) Energy Dissipation Systems for Seismic Applications: Current Practice and Recent Developments, M. D. Symans; F. A. Charney; A. S. Whittaker; M. C. Constantinou; Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, Vol 134 (1) pp. 3-21.
2) The reinforced cut wall (RCW): A low-cost base dissipator for masonry buildings, Sassu, M., Earthquake Spectra , 2006, Vol 22(2), pp. 533-554
3) Engineering practice of seismic isolation and energy dissipation structures in China, Pan P.; Ye L.; Shi W.; Cao H. Y.; Sci. China Technol. Springer, 2012, Vol. 55, pp. 3036–3046.
The precast walls are described in terms of concrete and geometry but no info are reported about steel rebars: they could play a mechanical role (as decleared at lines 175-179 by the authors), mainly in the scheme described in fig.4, please add it.
A relevant aspect that should be raised in the conclusions is the following: the experimental campaign was focused around destructive earthquakes obtaining drifts of about 2%, but those values do not properly protect the non-structural elements in the building. Please add some considerations about it.
Editorial aspects: maybe EXERGY LTD (not LDT).
In reference [5] the name of the author is Terenzi not Terenci.
Author Response
The manuscript deals with experimental tests on an innovative low cost devices for seismic protection of R.C. precast buildings. Three levels of tests are described together with a wide discussion on results.
The manuscript is focused on a relevant and interesting topic of seismic structures. The tests are well described and the results are clearly illustrated.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments. The answers to your comments are included in the paper in green.
The paper does not deal with numerical modeling, thus the title should be modified: “Experimental campaign on of a low-cost and replaceable system for passive energy dissipation in precast concrete structures".
ANSWER: In the new version of the paper the title has been changed.
The paper lacks references on low cost seismic devices, thus it occurs to add at lines 56-57 further references as
1) Energy Dissipation Systems for Seismic Applications: Current Practice and Recent Developments, M. D. Symans; F. A. Charney; A. S. Whittaker; M. C. Constantinou; Journal of Structural Engineering, 2008, Vol 134 (1) pp. 3-21.
2) The reinforced cut wall (RCW): A low-cost base dissipator for masonry buildings, Sassu, M., Earthquake Spectra , 2006, Vol 22(2), pp. 533-554
3) Engineering practice of seismic isolation and energy dissipation structures in China, Pan P.; Ye L.; Shi W.; Cao H. Y.; Sci. China Technol. Springer, 2012, Vol. 55, pp. 3036–3046.
ANSWER: In the new version of the paper these references have been included.
The precast walls are described in terms of concrete and geometry but no info are reported about steel rebars: they could play a mechanical role (as decleared at lines 175-179 by the authors), mainly in the scheme described in fig.4, please add it.
ANSWER: In the new version of the paper the reinforcement of the precast walls have been included.
A relevant aspect that should be raised in the conclusions is the following: the experimental campaign was focused around destructive earthquakes obtaining drifts of about 2%, but those values do not properly protect the non-structural elements in the building. Please add some considerations about it.
ANSWER: A sentence related to this issue has been included.
Editorial aspects: maybe EXERGY LTD (not LDT).
ANSWER: Done
In reference [5] the name of the author is Terenzi not Terenci.
ANSWER: Done
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper deals with an interesting research subject. It has the merit of reporting the assessment of a new passive system for dissipation of energy of precast concrete structures when subjected to seismic events based on a significant experimental campaign.
Furthermore, the bibliographic review is adequate, and it is a generally clear and well-structured article.
English writing should be improved as, for example, in the following cases:
in page 2, substitute “to obtaining” by “to obtain”; in line 97, “if” should be “of”; in page 5 “at a top” should be “at the top”, “consists on” should be “consists of”, “threated bars” should be “threaded bars” (the same occurs in Fig. 4) and “it” should be “its”; in page 6, “composed by” should be “composed of”; in page 14, the reviewer suggests the use of the word “relationship” instead of “correlation”; in page 15, “in contact to” should be “in contact with”, “clearly small” should be “clearly less than” or “clearly smaller” and “tension strain are larges” should be “tension strains are larger”; in page 17 and 21, “immediately occupancy” should be “immediate occupancy”.
The following recommendations and questions are presented:
what do the authors mean with “the Spanish company… is the owner of this structural solution and of the testing results”? Is there a patent on the discussed solution? the authors state that “the concrete quality is C30/37, according to Eurocode 2”. How was it determined? in p. 4 it is said: “Additionally, a row of conventional steel rebars sew the joint between the wall and the cast-in situ slab”. More information about the details of this connection should be provided; in Fig. 18, the response concerning Wall 1 shows a unexpected behaviour when unloading from a rotation greater than 0.03 rad. Please, justify this behaviour; more information on the energy dissipation system used in the tests should be provided. It is not possible to evaluate the results as well as the solution under discussion if no details on the main aspect of the analysis are provided. For instance, the number, diameter and type of steel used for the threaded bars, as well as information on the linking elements, should be provided.Author Response
This paper deals with an interesting research subject. It has the merit of reporting the assessment of a new passive system for dissipation of energy of precast concrete structures when subjected to seismic events based on a significant experimental campaign.
Furthermore, the bibliographic review is adequate, and it is a generally clear and well-structured article.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments. The answers to your comments are included in the paper in red.
English writing should be improved as, for example, in the following cases:
In page 2, substitute “to obtaining” by “to obtain”; in line 97, “if” should be “of”; in page 5 “at a top” should be “at the top”, “consists on” should be “consists of”, “threated bars” should be “threaded bars” (the same occurs in Fig. 4) and “it” should be “its”; in page 6, “composed by” should be “composed of”; in page 14, the reviewer suggests the use of the word “relationship” instead of “correlation”; in page 15, “in contact to” should be “in contact with”, “clearly small” should be “clearly less than” or “clearly smaller” and “tension strain are larges” should be “tension strains are larger”; in page 17 and 21, “immediately occupancy” should be “immediate occupancy”.
ANSWER: In the new version of the document the English writing has been improved and all the mistakes mentioned have been corrected.
The following recommendations and questions are presented:
What do the authors mean with “the Spanish company… is the owner of this structural solution and of the testing results”? Is there a patent on the discussed solution?
ANSWER: This is just because the University of Burgos and the company ICONKRETE 2012 S.L. signed a NDA and a research contract. This contract includes a clause whereby the research results belong to the client. In addition, ICONKRETE has authorized the authors to disseminate the data collected in this paper.
The authors state that “the concrete quality is C30/37, according to Eurocode 2”. How was it determined?
ANSWER: The compressive strength was obtained was obtained following the method described in standard EN 12390-3. This sentence has been included in the new version of the paper.
In p. 4 it is said: “Additionally, a row of conventional steel rebars sew the joint between the wall and the cast-in situ slab”. More information about the details of this connection should be provided.
ANSWER: Additional information about this row of conventional steel rebars has been included.
In Fig. 18, the response concerning Wall 1 shows an unexpected behaviour when unloading from a rotation greater than 0.03 rad. Please, justify this behaviour.
ANSWER: The explanation of this behaviour has been included in the paper.
More information on the energy dissipation system used in the tests should be provided. It is not possible to evaluate the results as well as the solution under discussion if no details on the main aspect of the analysis are provided. For instance, the number, diameter and type of steel used for the threaded bars, as well as information on the linking elements, should be provided.
ANSWER: Additional information about the energy dissipation system has been included.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This reviewer has no further comments for the authors.
