Nonlinear Static Analysis for Seismic Evaluation of Existing RC Hospital Building

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The article is well written, but please compare the theoretical and numerical results. Comparisons of these results from the literature are very important in the discussion. Applications should be completed with all important results.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attached response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

First of all, I'm happy to see that authors proposed a strongly improved revision version of the paper, with point-by-point comments to the previous review. Here my comments on the revised version of the manuscript, before to re-evaluate the paper for publication:

- Literature at the base of the paper is yet to improve. Among the keywords, I see two main aspects, that is, pushover analysis and hospital.  Regarding the first aspect, I suggest to mention at least 2-3 works about the topic (see for example 10.3390/buildings10100177 and references therein). Regarding the second, I suggest to mention some analogous studies (see for example 10.3390/app13031663)

- Still, description of the numerical models should be improved. Very few details are currently provided

- Pushover results seem to be work, even if the shear is high. Nevertheless, if the authors re-made the model in another software and the result is the same, I cannot say something else. By the way, what about shear failures? 

- Figure 5c. Something is strange. The capacity spectrum is different from the one in Figure 5b, the unit measures of acceleration and displacements should be checked (acceleration should be 0.7g and 5 m of displacement seems to be strange)

- Still, the main novelty of the work is not declared. I suggest to improve this aspect.

Author Response

Please see the attached responses to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The paper can be accepted for publication 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a pushover analysis on a RC hospital, for purpose of estimating seismic behaviour and structural response. The paper does not present any novelty aspect, except for the seismic analysis of a real structure. In my opinion it must be rejected. 

Below, authors can find my comments:

- The introduction is extremely poor, considering that the focus of the paper is the pushover analysis. There are myriads of references that face the many problems related to the pushover analysis, which are completely ignored. 

- Regarding to the structure investigated, several parameters are missing. First, being an hospital, it is possible to report a real figure? After, how can the structural materials be classified according to a new class (this is impossible especially for the concrete)? Still, how did authors get the information at their disposal? 

- Regarding the model, no information is reported about the nonlinear modelling (i.e., constitutive law of plastic hinges). This description must be strongly revised and enlarged

- About pushover curves, they are completely elastic! How is it possible? Did authors ignore post-elastic behaviour? An evident error can be observed (10000 kN of base shear???)

- Also regarding the assessment, it is not possible to present screenshot of SAP software or tables copied and paste from it. 

- What are the conclusions? What about the novelty aspects? I'm sorry, but this is no more than a bachelor thesis. 

English must be revised. 

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I would like to thank the authors for submitting the manuscript to the journal. I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend your manuscript to be considered for publication in the journal because of the following reasons:

1) Although your study and the achieved results are valuable the study concentrates on a local topic. I would like to suggest you submit the manuscript to a local journal.

2)  The introduction section should be rewritten. The literature review is not comprehensive and the novelty is not clearly stated. Moreover, when authors submit a manuscript to a journal, It is expected the related papers published in the journal are studied. 

3) In section 2, named "Applied Analysis Methods", the theoretical model should be explained. The section content can be transferred in the section 4.

 

4) The section 3 title is similar to the section2 title. It is expected the obtained results are explained and evaluated. Moreover, how to validate the reported results?

The English language is appropriate. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors The article concerns an interesting study of the static pushover analysis of an existing RC hospital building in Esztergom, Hungary.

The article is correct, but it needs to be corrected: - literature - there is no comparison table with other results from the literature, - computational models - it may be worth adding a numerical model, writing down all the data entered into the program, - discussion - compare with the results from the literature.

Please make the following changes:

1. introduction - no comparison table with other results from the literature,

2. methodology - aspects of the hospital building should be defined more clearly,

3. calculation models - it is worth adding a numerical model, first of all writing down all data entered into the programme,

4. discussion - compare with results from the literature. Also: Topic relevant to the field.

Please refer to the topic coverage in the discussion in comparison with other published scientific material.

Conclusions correct.

References are appropriate. Please improve the legibility of the figures very much.

 

Minor grammatical errors.