Using Friction-Yielding Damper CAR1 to Seismic Retrofit a Two-Story RC Building: Numerical Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some points of the study should be improved or better explained. A re-review of the manuscript is required.

 

1) At the end of Abstract, it is suggested to better highlight (in a very synthetic way) some novel results obtained in this study, improving and extending the last sentence.

 

2) At the end of Introduction, the main steps and aims of the study are presented. However, the main novelty aspects of the study should be better explained and discussed, especially with respect to previous works of the same author.

 

3) Line 32. It is suggested to mention, near references [2-7], the following reference dealing with an innovative dissipative device based on diagonal braces and ductile shear panel:

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000814

 

4) What are the main advantages and limitations of the use of friction-yield dampers CAR1 for seismic retrofitting of RC buildings when compared with other techniques/devices? A remark should be added in Introduction.

 

5) More details about the numerical models of the RC building under study should be provided. In particular, a more comprehensive description of the moment-curvature relationships adopted for beams and columns should be added.

 

6) What are the effects of the insertion of diagonal braces with friction-yield dampers CAR1 on the main results (vibration mode, period and participating mass) of modal analysis for the building model under study? It is suggested to compare and discuss the main results (at least for the first mode) for the building model with and without diagonal braces equipped with dampers.

 

7) In this study the effectiveness of friction-yield dampers has been investigated for a low-rise (2-storey) RC building. A remark about the application of friction-yield dampers for medium-to-high rise buildings can be added. 

 

8) Lines 192-197. It is suggested to provide a more comprehensive description of the model and properties adopted for the damper.

 

9) A preliminary estimation of the overall inadequacy of existing RC buildings and a proper choice of effective retrofitting strategies are fundamental phases for seismic protection of RC buildings. A remark should be inserted in Introduction, mentioning the following reference:

10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.02.001

 

10) Conclusions (Section 5) should be improved, better highlighting the main strengths of the study. In particular, the first part of Conclusions should be re-arranged, shortly summarizing the main novelty aspects of the study, especially with respect to previous works of the same author.

 

11) At the end of Conclusions, some short recommendations for future work should be included.

 

12) The manuscript is characterized by a low quality of the English language. An extensive revision of the text is required.

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for the time he spent and his valuable comments on his article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents the application of a (passive) metallic damper for the seismic retrofitting of existing RC structures. The contents is primarily of use for professionals. The methodology is sound, however there is a single case study which does not allorw generalization.

Additionally, it is suggested to perform validation and generalization through non-linear dynamic analyses, e.g. incremental dynamic analyses. 

Written English should be significantly improved.

Tables and figures require amendments.

References should be revised.

Specific comments are in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The author thanks the reviewer for the time he spent and his valuable comments on his article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer.

The revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.