On the Role of Seismic Damage Tolerance on Costs and Life Cycle of CLT Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

With reference to a real two-story CLT school building in northern Italy, this paper reviews the most common seismic design procedures of CLT buildings and their implications on structural features and technological solutions, with special attention to overall seismic performance, damage tolerance, construction costs and environmental impact. In other words, the research topics in this paper are of practical value and informative and have some guidance for practical engineering. However, the following modifications need to be made in the text:

1. In the Introduction section, nearly half of the references have exceeded 5 years of age, and it is worth considering whether they still have reference value.

2. The term "PF Innovation" in Figure 1(f) is inconsistent with the term "FP Innovation" in the 16th reference and is suggested to be harmonized.

3. The "X" in the title of Figure 5a in line 285 is repeated, and the layout of the text and the description of the text should be refined.

4. The orientation of the structural model in Figure 5b is opposite to the wall geometry, and it is recommended to modify it.

5. It is suggested that the different axial strain values used should be indicated on the left and right of Figure 7 (a) and (b) respectively to make the title more accurate.

6. In Figure 8, the horizontal coordinates are incorrectly labeled, and there is a duplicate "G1-A1", which is suggested to be corrected.

7. Line 450 misspells "Groups G1" as "Groups 1G", so check whether other related expressions in the text are correct.

8. The descriptions in lines 480-485 are similar, resulting in duplicate explanations, and it is suggested to revise and simplify them.

9. Lines 250, 358, 361, 507, 509, and 522 contain errors in word spelling and noun singular and plural.

   The language in the essay is relatively accurate, but there are some spelling and grammatical errors that need to be corrected.

Author Response

The file with the responses to the reviewer is attached to this message.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The article presents a contribution to reviewing common seismic design procedures for Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) buildings and their implications on structural features, technological solutions, seismic performance, damage tolerance, construction costs, and environmental impact.

The subject matter is interesting and valuable. The comments below may help the authors to improve their article:

 

1.     The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of CLT buildings and the significance of the study, but it lacks a clear statement of the research objectives.

2.     The references cited in the introduction are outdated. The authors should update the references to include the latest relevant studies in the field of CLT buildings and connections.

3.     In Section 2, when discussing the correlation between damage tolerance, costs, and sustainability of CLT buildings, the authors should provide more concrete examples and data to support their claims.

4.     The methodology section (Section 3) lacks information on the specific numerical and analytical methods used for the nonlinear static analyses (e.g., pushover analyses).

5.     In the description of the sample building in Section 3.1, the authors mention a "real two-storey CLT school building located in Northern Italy," but they do not provide any information about the actual building's location, construction details, or seismic performance.

6.     In Section 3.2, when discussing the design criteria for connections, the authors mention the "Strength Hierarchy (SH) criterion" without explaining what it entails.

7.     When discussing the modeling of CLT structures in Section 3.4, the authors mention "simplified methodologies suitable for macro-scale modeling of the CLT material." It would be helpful to explain the rationale behind choosing these specific simplified methodologies and how they may affect the accuracy and reliability of the results.

8.     In Section 3.4, the authors describe the modeling of post-tensioned walls but do not provide any references or guidelines that support the use of the Displacement-Based Design approach from Australian and New Zealand design guidelines.

9.     Figures 5 and 6 are presented as the 2D-shell models of the buildings for Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. However, these figures lack key information, such as the dimensions and materials used for the models. The authors should include a more detailed description of the model characteristics or provide supplementary materials with the complete model specifications.

10.  The authors should clarify whether the seismic analyses were performed in both directions (X and Y) for each structural scheme in Group 1. If not, they should explain the reason for choosing one direction over the other.

11.  The paper would benefit from a clear statement of the limitations of the study.

12.  Throughout the paper, the authors should check for consistency in terminology and notation. Ensure that abbreviations and acronyms are defined before use and consistently used throughout the text.

13.  Lastly, the language and writing style of the paper need improvement. There are some grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and overly complex sentences that should be revised to enhance clarity and readability.

14.  The discussion of the results should provide more clarity on the specific numerical models used in the study. Details about the geometries, boundary conditions, and material properties of the models should be included to enhance the reproducibility of the study.

15.  The comparison of the two SH criteria, A1 and A2, lacks a clear explanation of their fundamental differences. Include a more detailed description of these criteria and how they affect the structural behavior and performance.

The article needs a major revision.

Author Response

The file with the responses to the reviewer is attached to this message.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications are satisfactory. The article could be accepted.