Seismic Rehabilitation of Abandoned RC Industrial Buildings: The Case Study of a Former Tobacco Factory in the District of Avellino (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors presented a seismic analysis and the combined seismic-energy retrofit of a former reinforced concrete tobacco factory. I went over the manuscript carefully and overall.

I submit this report about the general comments and reviewing details of the paper. First, the Abstract is not giving an understanding of the paper. Therefore, the abstract should be revised with including the findings and novelty of the research. Authors should clarify their purpose. Authors need to explain what they want to convey to the readers. Language in the manuscript should be edited professionally. I recommend some simplification. Sentences are too long and lots of unnecessary information there. The paper mostly presents the analysis results but does not talk about the interpretation of them. The literature spectrum is rather weak, it should cover more. The conclusion should be enhanced by considering the results. There should be something beyond the analyses for the readers to take out. That should be emphasized in the paper well. The results can be given in a meaningful manner for readers to understand.

Author Response

SEE ATTACHED FILE

Reviewer 2 Report

The present paper deals with seismic rehabilitation of an abandoned RC industrial structural through utilization of steel exoskeleton. In addition, application of photovoltaic plants to provide required energy of the retrofitted structure is proposed. The topic is really interesting and falls within the scope of the journal, but in its present form, it is not suitable for publication. In fact, many important information is missing the manuscript, which makes it impossible for the readers to fully understand the practical aspects of the study and also makes it impossible to reproduce the attained results by the authors. Therefore, in my opinion this study can be considered for publication after major revision and improvement by the authors.

The following issue should be considered:

• English language of the paper is generally well. However, some minor errors and typos are available. For instance:
• The first line of abstract: In Italy, the interest in the industrial areas dated back from to 1970, when industry began to be considered as the identity and memory of the population.
• Page 1, line 12: To For this purpose …
• Page 1, line 17; … was were carried out.

In general, the paper would benefit from an accurate proofread. \

• The literature review can be significantly improved.
• One of the major concerns regarding this study, is the method used for material properties characterization. As it is mentioned in section 2.2, it seems that the mechanical properties of concrete and reinforcement bars are selected from predefined charts, only based on their production date. This is very questionable for the reviewer. However, the national rehabilitation standards in Italy may allow the practitioner engineers to use a series of predefined minimum values based on the circumstances for vulnerability evaluation of existing structures (which the reviewer is not completely sure and many possible readers may be the same so some explanation is this regard is required), but the respected authors surely know that the influential factor on the mechanical properties of material is not only their age, and other major factors mostly environmental condition and loading history also plays very important role in the current condition of materials. Especially in the case of concrete, the production quality considerably affects the mechanical strength, so assuming a minimum compressive strength based on the production age is a very questionable assumption!

Therefore, for practical rehabilitation projects, it is common practice to usually perform a series of destructive or non-destructive tests on samples taken from the structure. However, as mentioned in the first paragraph of page 5, the utilized approach is in accordance to Italian standards (i.e ref. 10 and 11). So, it would be very helpful for the readers. In general, more explanation and justification for the assumed mechanical properties for the materials is required.

• It is known that depending on the mechanical properties of used material and geometrical details, infill walls may or may not add lateral stiffness and strength to buildings. As described in section 2.4, the infill walls are not included in the model. This assumption should be clearly justified and explained.
• Details of the site soil condition, the structural elements, and the designed retrofitting exoskeleton are not given.
• No discussion is presented on the results, for instance the provide capacity curves.
• In general, the manuscript is somehow like a short report on the performed extensive study, and unfortunately the manuscript in its present form fail to demonstrate important technical aspects of the work.

 

Author Response

SEE ATTACHED FILE

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In the article is proposed seismic analysis and combined seismic-energy retrofit intervention of RC former tobacco factory erected at the end of 1950s in Cervinara, within the district of Avellino (Italy), based on the use of steel exoskeletons. Exoskeletons were used for improving the seismic features of the studied industrial building. FEM model of the building before and after seismic intervention was performed by SAP2000 software. Static nonlinear analysis was used. Photovoltaic plant using high efficiency panels was proposed for providing the entire energy requirement.
The manuscript is clear and relevant for the field. The number of cited references should be increased, five of eighteen literatures are selfcitations. It would be good to added more literatures of other researches from the last five years.
I have the following comments about the article:
1) When performing seismic rehabilitation of existing building it would be good the values used for mechanical properties of concrete, reinforcing steel and steel for trusses to be verified with some in-situ tests (destructive test of cores and/or nondestructiteve tests, etc.). This will take into account the real change of strength over time;
2) On row 127 is written that the infill walls weight is equal to 915,78 kN·m-1. Is this the load?
3) On figure 6 (a), 6 (b), 11 (a) and 11 (b)are missing labels for x and y axis, as well as measuring units;
4) Some of the captions in Figure 10 are difficult to read;
5) Data for 5 of 6 buildings is not provided, how is determined photovoltaic plant efficiency for each of them?
6) In the conclusion is written that in-situ tests were performed, it would be good, results to be shown. The conclusion can be supplemented by comments on specific results.

 

Author Response

SEE ATTACHED FILE

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is modified reasonably and is suitable for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the modified version of our manuscript.