The Effect of Material Quality on Buildings Moderately and Heavily Damaged by the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript introduced the building damage in Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. Generally it is not well organized, and is not very readable. The topic falls into the scope the journal, but there are some key deficiencies that compromise the manuscript quality:
1. The title is ‘Effect of Material Quality on Moderate and Heavily Damaged Buildings’. But from the start of section 4, it introduced the effect of ‘basement soil’, ‘liquefied region’, ‘collision’, ‘serious cracks’, ‘soft floor’, ‘short column’, which are all material-independent problems. This can be very confusing for the reader
2. This manuscript lacks research depth. A lot of statement of introduction, without in-depth discussion and analysis.
3. Some similar contents were stated repetitively. For instance, line 354-356, and line 364-368.
4. Most conclusions were qualitative, rather than quantitative.
5. The conclusions are lengthy, only the very significant findings should be introduced.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for evaluating and putting your effort into it. According to your directions, the publication has been revised.
- The title is ‘Effect of Material Quality on Moderate and Heavily Damaged Buildings’. But from the start of section 4, it introduced the effect of ‘basement soil’, ‘liquefied region’, ‘collision’, ‘serious cracks’, ‘soft floor’, ‘short column’, which are all material-independent problems. This can be very confusing for the reader.
After the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, we investigated the material quality of the moderately and heavily damaged buildings. However, we wanted to add different types of damage, since there were no damages due to material only in the structures we investigated. We have removed the highlights you mentioned in line with your guidance. The title of this section has been changed and the section has been shortened. A statement was also made at the beginning of the section.
- This manuscript lacks research depth. A lot of statement of introduction, without in-depth discussion and analysis.
The re-test part has been written. Results and discussion section added. The experimental data, which is the main subject of the study, were detailed. All data were compared and explained one by one. Other chapters were also abbreviated. Only the additions requested by the other reviewer were made.
- Some similar contents were stated repetitively. For instance, line 354-356, and line 364-368.
The second part has been removed.
- Most conclusions were qualitative, rather than quantitative.
All experimental data were rewritten in more detail. As a major part of the results section, the experimental data were presented numerically and then interpreted.
- The conclusions are lengthy, only the very significant findings should be introduced.
The conclusion part has been corrected again as you requested.
Best Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper introduced “The Effect of Material Quality on Moderate and Heavily Damaged Buildings After the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake”. The reviewer believes that this work is useful for engineering applications. However, necessary modifications and clarifications carefully to the manuscript are necessary before it can be considered after the corrections suggested below:
The reviewer suggests that the “Introduction” part did not discuss about seismic retrofit. The reviewer suggests that the author should add a sentence about the seismic retrofit and additional references in order to literature about the previous improvement of the seismic performance of the building. It may support discussing the current problems from the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake. The following is an example of the sentences and the suggested references:
“Wrapping the RC columns with carbon fiber reinforced polymers [1-2], filling in bays with new RC shear walls [3-4], or adding traditional steel bracing [5-8] are common methods of retrofitting RC moment frames. However, installing dampers to boost energy dissipation has been found to improve the seismic performance of new structures [9-20] and to efficiently manage the seismic response in retrofitted buildings.
Binici B, Ozcebe G, Ozcelik R. Analysis and design of FRP composites for seismic retrofit of infill walls in reinforced concrete frames. Composite: Part B 2007; 38: 575-583.
[1] Ozcan O, Binici B, Ozcebe G. Improving seismic performance of deficient reinforced concrete columns using carbon fiber-reinforced polymers, Engineering Structures 2008; 30: 1632-1646.
[2] Foutch D.A, Hjelmstad K.D, Calderon E.D.V, Gutierrez E.F, Downs R.E. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985: Case studies of seismic strengthening for two buildings in Mexico City. Earthquake Spectra 1989; 5: 153–174.
[3] Canbay E, Ersoy U, Ozcebe G. Contribution of reinforced concrete infills to seismic behavior of structural systems. ACI Structural Journal 2003; 100: 637–643.
[4] Badoux M., Jirsa J.O. Steel bracing of RC frames for seismic retrofitting. Journal of Structural Engineering 1990; 116: 55–74.
[5] Fukuyama H, S.Sugano. Japanese seismic rehabilitation of concrete buildings after the Hyogoken–Nanbu earthquake. Cement and Concrete Composites 2000; 22: 59–79.
[6] Jara M, Hernandez C, Garcia R, Robles F. The Mexico earthquake of September 19, 1985: Typical cases of repair and strengthening of concrete buildings, Earthquake Spectra 1989; 5: 175–193.
[7] Jirsa J. O. Divergent issues in rehabilitation of existing buildings, Earthquake Spectra 1994; 10: 95–112.
[8] Chandra J, Warnitchai P. Application of Buckling Restrained Braces for Seismic Strengthening of Irregular Gravity Load Designed Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings. Civil Engineering Dimension 2011;13:65-74.
[9] Di Sarno L, Manfredi G. Experimental tests on full-scale RC unretrofitted frame and retrofitted with buckling-restrained braces. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2012; 41: 315-333.
[10] Saingam, P., Sutcu, F., Terazawa, Y., Fujishita, K., Lin, P.C., Celik, O.C., and Takeuchi, T.: Composite Behavior in RC Buildings Retrofitted using Buckling-Restrained Braces with Elastic Steel Frames. Engineering Structures, Vol 219, Paper No. 110896 (2020).
[11] Habibi A, Chan R. W.K, Albermani F. Energy-based design method for seismic retrofitting with passive energy dissipation systems. Engineering Structures 2013; 46: 77-86.
[12] Sutcu F, Takeuchi T, Matsui R. Seismic Retrofitting Design Method of Existing RC Buildings with Buckling Restrained Braces. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2014; 101: 304–313.
[13] Saingam, P., Matsuzaki, R., Nishikawa, K., Sitler, B., Terazawa, Y., and Takeuchi, T.: Experimental dynamic characterization of friction brace dampers and application to the seismic retrofit of RC buildings. Engineering Structures, Vol 242, Paper No. 112545 (2021).
[14] Khampanit A, Leelataviwat A, Kochanin J, Warnitchai P. Energy-based seismic strengthening design of non-ductile reinforced concrete frames using buckling-restrained braces. Engineering Structures 2014; 81: 110-122.
[15] Thipprapan, T., Jarasjarungkiat, A., Saingam, P., Petchsasithon., Seismic Retrofit of RC Building with Elastic Stage of Buckling-Restrain Braces A. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering, 2023, pp. 187–196
[16] Mahrenholtz1 C, Lin P.C, Wu A.C, Tsai K.C, Hwang J.H, Lin R.Y, Bhayusukma M.Y. Retrofit of reinforced concrete frames with buckling-restrained braces. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2015; 44: 59–78.
[17] Sutcu F, Bal A, Fujishita K, Matsui R, Celik O.C, Takeuchi T, Matsui R, Terashima M, Maeda Y. Experimental and Analytical Studies of Sub-Standard RC Frames Retrofitted with Buckling-Restrained Braces and Steel Frames. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2020; 18: 2389–2410
[18] Saingam, P., Response Control on Seismic Retrofit of Low-Rise RC Frame Using Viscous Damper Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 2023, 276 LNCE, pp. 38–48
[19] López-Almansa F, Cruz S.T D, Taylor C. Experimental study of friction dissipators for seismic protection of building structures. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 2011; 10: 475–486.
1. ”The reviewer suggest the authors that the author should add more “Discussion” section to describe the main problem and suggest suitable to retrofitting or strengthening the structures in order to prevent the damage from the future earthquake.
2. The reviewer suggests that the author should add more Literature reviews of the previous study.
3. The reviewer suggests that the author should compare the current investigations on Kahramanmaraş Earthquake to the previous earthquakes in the country in order to clarify that they are the same problems and failures or not.
4. The authors should explain the reason why the authors select the target building as shown in the manuscript to be the representative structures in this study.
5. The authors should compare the hammer and coring results in this study. In addition, the authors should compare the difference between the two methods and give the results why the different results are shown. Moreover, the authors should find some comparison from the previous study about this difference.
6. Conclusion should be more clear and condense the outcome of the research. In addition, the authors suggest that the reviewer should simplify by writing the conclusion one by one to explain the outcome instead of writing, as paragraphs.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you for the corrections and suggestions you have made to our study.
- The reviewer suggest the authors that the author should add more “Discussion” section to describe the main problem and suggest suitable to retrofitting or strengthening the structures in order to prevent the damage from the future earthquake.
Added discussion and conclusion section. All data have been compared here. Comments were made about the poor quality of the materials. The importance of reinforcement was mentioned especially for moderately damaged structures. References were made to articles that were studied as experimental and numerical analyses after other earthquakes. The study you show has been reviewed. Additions have been made like the paragraph you mentioned.
- The reviewer suggests that the author should add more Literature reviews of the previous study.
A more detailed literature review was done. More detailed research was done on both the amplification and the experimental part. These literature reviews were added to the study. Therefore, the number of references has increased.
- The reviewer suggests that the author should compare the current investigations on Kahramanmaraş Earthquake to the previous earthquakes in the country to clarify that they are the same problems and failures or not.
The study did not mention that similar problems were encountered in this study by mentioning the old earthquakes and explaining the problems they found in other earthquakes. However, after the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, it was stated that the regulations were not considered in the new buildings. It was stated that production was carried out without paying attention to the problems in other earthquakes.
- The authors should explain the reason why the authors select the target building as shown in the manuscript to be the representative structures in this study.
In the experiment part, grouping the buildings and why we chose these 20 buildings were detailed. However, another piece of information we did not include here is that the building owners did not want their buildings to be presented in the study. Since earthquakes and demolitions have continued in the region, structures, where we can work more easily, were preferred.
- The authors should compare the hammer and coring results in this study. In addition, the authors should compare the difference between the two methods and give the results why the different results are shown. Moreover, the authors should find some comparison from the previous study about this difference.
All experimental data were compared in the results. Other studies were explored, and additions were made.
- The conclusion should be clearer and condense the outcome of the research. In addition, the authors suggest that the reviewer should simplify by writing the conclusion one by one to explain the outcome instead of writing, it as paragraphs.
The entire conclusion section has been rewritten. Also, Experimental data has been added in more detail to that section. Each explanation was made item by item.
In short, the conclusion part and the discussion result were written again, additions were made to the introduction and findings section and suggestions were presented. The number of references increased accordingly. In Kahramanmaraş-Elbistan's general damage problems in Chapter 4 have been reduced. The experiment section is more detailed.
Best Regard,
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
it can be published
Author Response
Have completed the extra requests of the second reviewer.
Thank you for taking care and sport.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper introduced “The Effect of Material Quality on Moderate and Heavily Damaged Buildings After the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake”. The reviewer believes that this work is useful for practical engineering applications. And, the authors have revised the manuscript moderately. The literature reviews are still lacking for seismic retrofit and strengthening. In addition, the experiments most of the experiment methods are ordinary methods, which do not improve the scientific investigation methods in scientific. There are some points that the reviewers suggest, and they may be important for improving the quality of the papers before publication.
1. The reviewer suggests that the “Introduction” part did not discuss about a seismic retrofit. The reviewer suggests that the author should add a sentence about the seismic retrofit and additional references in order to literature about the previous improvement of the seismic performance of the building. It may support discussing the current problems from the Kahramanmaraş Earthquake as an example in the first comment.
2. The authors mention that “The study did not mention that similar problems were encountered in this study by mentioning the old earthquakes and explaining the problems they found in other earthquakes. However, after the Kahramanmaraş earthquake, it was stated that the regulations were not considered in the new buildings. It was stated that production was carried out without paying attention to the problems in other earthquakes.”
However, the reviewers believed that the comparison or explanation of the previous earthquakes in the country “with additional appropriate reference ” to clarify whether they are the same problems and failures or not are important for this kind of publication because most of experiment methods are ordinary methods, which do not improve the investigation methods in scientific
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
The study's objectives and our motivation for conducting the study were thoroughly developed by tying them to empowerment in the introduction's conclusion paragraph.
The references have once more been updated to reflect the most recent revision.
Beyond the section devoted to results,
Added the retrofitting work that must be done in accordance with TBEC 2018. So, using both regulations and references, we provided a recommendation with regard to the conception and design of the reinforcement of damaged structures.
It was professionally edited.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the review’s comments carefully. In addition, the language has been improved. The reviewer believes that this work is useful for engineering applications. There is no additional comment from the reviewer.
