Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is focusing on reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames. In recent years, many territories have been hit by forts intensity seismic sequences, as a result of which widespread damage was highlighted in the non-structural elements and in particular the cladding-partitions in masonry in reinforced concrete buildings, with damage to the floor and with out-of-plane expulsions-collapses of single-layer and-or external cladding of double-layer masonry. The causes of such problems are from to attribute to various aspects, in part related to the poor realization of construction details and the use of poor-quality materials mechanical but also partly linked to improper design of the infills.
I recommend the paper for publication, however, there are some concerns, comments and suggestion should be addressed before publication:
- There are grammar and typographic errors. Please correct these errors and further improve the language.
- Abstract section should be modified and it should be in scientific article style.
- Keywords should be around five important keywords of the article.
- Section 1 needs references to approve the explanation. Also, the article has same problem in section 1.1.
- In line 112 there is a mistake in reference no. and author should be recheck it.
- For section 2, authors should make the category for masonry infills as chart to make it mor clear.
- For section 2, authors should add more numeric data to make it more understandable.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The article is focusing on reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames. In recent years, many territories have been hit by forts intensity seismic sequences, as a result of which widespread damage was highlighted in the non-structural elements and in particular the cladding-partitions in masonry in reinforced concrete buildings, with damage to the floor and with out-of-plane expulsions-collapses of single-layer and-or external cladding of double-layer masonry. The causes of such problems are from to attribute to various aspects, in part related to the poor realization of construction details and the use of poor-quality materials mechanical but also partly linked to improper design of the infills.
I recommend the paper for publication, however, there are some concerns, comments and suggestion should be addressed before publication:
Point 1: There are grammar and typographic errors. Please correct these errors and further improve the language.
Response 1: The document has been thoroughly revised and corrected
Point 2: Abstract section should be modified and it should be in scientific article style.
Response 2: The abstract (definition) has been completeley revised and corrected
Point 3: Keywords should be around five important keywords of the article.
Response 3: I added two additional keywords
Point 4: Section 1 needs references to approve the explanation. Also, the article has same problem in section 1.1.
Response 4: There are no references as the notions are based on direct and personal experience in the field
Point 5: In line 112 there is a mistake in reference no. and author should be recheck it.
Response 5: I remove the reference [xx]
Point 6: For section 2, authors should make the category for masonry infills as chart to make it mor clear.
Response 6: I have inserted a summary chart of the various types of strut
Point 7: For section 2, authors should add more numeric data to make it more understandable.
Response 7: I believe that with the inclusion of the graph referred to in the previous point, this part is clearer
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors describe the methods found in the literature, are not fully aware of the specificity of the problem in question. It requires a significant redrafting, taking into account the comments below.
The article is not suitable for publication in the Encyclopedia as it stands.
General remarks
- In Chapter 2 it is not clear how the struts in the reinforced concrete filled frames are arranged. Necessary sketch and explanation.
- Incorrect chapter numbering. Chapter 1 should be divided into 2 parts General information and Reinforced concrete frames with masonry.
- Chapter 2 should be split 2.1 Types of numerical models and 2.2 Suggested parameters for macro-models, and 2.3 Constitutive law for the infill masonry wall.
- Chapter 3 should be divided into 3.1 Types of assessment of bearing capacity of non-structurals elements, and 3.2 The floor spectrum.
- Incorrect nomenclature and missing quantity definitions appearing in the article.
- On the vertical axis of the graphs in subsection 2.2 (337 line) the force values ​​were assumed. How can the values ​​of displacements be compared, since differently defined struts widths are assumed in successive models?
- In chapter 3.1 the authors describe the floor spectrum method. Please explain how this model can be applied to Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames?
- The conclusions are very general. How do the conclusions in chapter 4 relate to the issues discussed in chapters 2 and 3? They should be more detailed and summarize the findings from the previous chapters.
- Moreover, in many cases the syntax of sentences needs to be improved.
The article is not well written.
Specific remarks
- 87 line: No reference to the drawing source.
- 112 line: Please describe or remove reference.
- 232 line: Should be: "strut" no "srtut".
- 238 line: What equation (2) actually looks like. Is there a whole expression under the root? Specify in which units.
- 248 line: What does λh mean in equations 4 and 5?
- 251 line: The angle θ has not been defined
- 264 line; What does the word "punton" mean? is it Italian for "puntone" or strut?
- 265 line: How are the parameters k, c, z and λ determined?
18.278 line: Should be "Δ" not "D"
- 280 line: Wrong wording: "up to the event of resistance in height"; please otherwise.
- 292 line bad wording: "the height resistance" The load capacity is simply the greatest force transmitted by an element.
- 294 line: Should reference Fig.2a.
- 305 line: There should be reference to Fig.2c.
- 310 line: Should be: Load capacity or maximum force "not" the peak "
- 311 line: K0 / Ksec is the stiffness ratio and not the crack-peak.
25.312 line; What does Kdeg mean?
- 320 line: There should be reference from Fig.2b.
- 333 line: Should reference Fig.2d.
28, 336 line; What do N and Da mean? Where are these quantities in Fig. 2d?
- 345 line: What does "main function blades" mean?
- 373 line: Please explain what this title means?
I recommend an in-depth review of the manuscript, including comments, to make it an article suitable for publication in the Encyclopedia.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
General remarks
Point 1: In Chapter 2 it is not clear how the struts in the reinforced concrete filled frames are arranged. Necessary sketch and explanation.
Response 1: I have included an explanatory drawing to explain how the strut fits into the reinforced concrete frame (page 5)
Point 2: Incorrect chapter numbering. Chapter 1 should be divided into 2 parts General information and Reinforced concrete frames with masonry.
Response 2: I split the chapter as required
Point 3: Chapter 2 should be split 2.1 Types of numerical models and 2.2 Suggested parameters for macro-models, and 2.3 Constitutive law for the infill masonry wall.
Response 3: I corrected the numbering of chapter 2
Point 4: Chapter 3 should be divided into 3.1 Types of assessment of bearing capacity of non-structurals elements, and 3.2 The floor spectrum.
Response 4: I corrected the numbering of chapter 3
Point 5: Incorrect nomenclature and missing quantity definitions appearing in the article.
Response 5: The document has been revised and corrected
Point 6: On the vertical axis of the graphs in subsection 2.2 (337 line) the force values ​​were assumed. How can the values ​​of displacements be compared, since differently defined struts widths are assumed in successive models?
Response 6: In this case they are not comparable as the schemes proposed only want to show the different types of constitutive laws on the basis of the models proposed by the various authors
Point 7: In chapter 3.1 the authors describe the floor spectrum method. Please explain how this model can be applied to Reinforced Concrete Infilled Frames?
Response 7: The application of the floor spectra as well as the current regulatory gap is explained from line 411 onwards
Point 8: The conclusions are very general. How do the conclusions in chapter 4 relate to the issues discussed in chapters 2 and 3? They should be more detailed and summarize the findings from the previous chapters.
Response 8: Conclusions have been integrated and corrected
Point 9: Moreover, in many cases the syntax of sentences needs to be improved.
Response 9: The document has been revised and corrected
Specific remarks
Point 10: 87 line: No reference to the drawing source.
Response 10: They are photographs taken by myself on the occasion of the L'Aquila earthquake on April 6, 2009.
Point 11: 112 line: Please describe or remove reference.
Response 11: I removed the reference
Point 12: 232 line: Should be: "strut" no "srtut".
Response 12: I corrected the word
Point 13: 238 line: What equation (2) actually looks like. Is there a whole expression under the root? Specify in which units.
Response 13: Yes, under the root there is only one fraction. This aspect is outlined by the first and last round brackets.
Point 14: 248 line: What does λh mean in equations 4 and 5?
Response 14: λ refers to equation (2), 'h' is the height of the wall panel, as better specified in the explanatory drawings I added (figure 2)
Point 15: 251 line: The angle θ has not been defined
Response 15: the angle θ is defined by equation (3)
Point 16: 264 line; What does the word "punton" mean? is it Italian for "puntone" or strut?
Response 16: I corrected the word
Point 17: 265 line: How are the parameters k, c, z and λ determined?
Response 17: c = accounting for Poisson’s ratio, k = accounting for vertical load, z = geometrical parameter, λ* refers to equation (11)
Point 18: 278 line: Should be "Δ" not "D"
Response 18: I corrected the word
Point 19: 280 line: Wrong wording: "up to the event of resistance in height"; please otherwise.
Response 19: I corrected the sentece
Point 20: 292 line bad wording: "the height resistance" The load capacity is simply the greatest force transmitted by an element.
Response 20: I corrected the sentece
Point 21: 294 line: Should reference Fig.2a.
Response 21: I added the reference
Point 22: 305 line: There should be reference to Fig.2c.
Response 22: I added the reference
Point 23: 310 line: Should be: Load capacity or maximum force "not" the peak "
Response 23: I corrected the sentence
Point 24: 311 line: K0 / Ksec is the stiffness ratio and not the crack-peak.
Response 24: I corrected the sentence
Point 25: 312 line; What does Kdeg mean?
Response 25: Kdeg is the softening-to-peak stiffness
Point 26: 320 line: There should be reference from Fig.2b.
Response 26: I added the reference
Point 27: 333 line: Should reference Fig.2d.
Response 27: Please provide your response for Point 27. (in red)
Point 28: 336 line; What do N and Da mean? Where are these quantities in Fig. 2d?
Response 28: I replaced with the correct nomencalture
Point 29: 345 line: What does "main function blades" mean?
Response 29: I removed “blades”
Point 30: 373 line: Please explain what this title means?
Response 30: I corrected the title. In this chapter the floor spectra are described
Reviewer 3 Report
English needs to be written in proper terminology.
I found the manusicript is not well written. Some part of paper is based on existing work but references are missing. In conclusion section l 459 doesn't give complete information to readers In general papers need language revision.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: English needs to be written in proper terminology.
Response 1: The document has been revised and corrected
Point 2: I found the manusicript is not well written. Some part of paper is based on existing work but references are missing.
Response 2: The document has been revised and corrected
Point 3: In conclusion section l 459 doesn't give complete information to readers.
Response 3: The conclusion section has been completely revised
Point 4: In general papers need language revision.
Response 4: The document has been revised and corrected
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This revised manuscript can be accpeted for publication.
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions provided.
MB
Reviewer 2 Report
Compared to the previous version of the article, they introduced significant corrections that partially take into account the suggestions of the reviewer. However, there are some serious bugs that require immediate correction.
- In my opinion, the answer to question 6 concerning the comparison of displacements due to forces is unsatisfactory. However, in order to assess the accuracy of the graphs, one should assume stress instead of force on the vertical axis.
- Ad. 10: Refers to Fig. 1. Therefore, it should be noted: "own source"
- Ad. 15: In Equation 3, the angle ϑ is defined. Please clearly define in the article what the angle θ is.
- Fig. 4 459 line: On the abscissa axis, the time unit is "s" and not "sec". Please correct.
The article should not be published as it stands.
Author Response
1. I corrected the scale of the drawing shown in figure 3, i.e. the heights and widths of the models have been corrected and homogenized.
2. I added the source with the hint provided and changed the numbering of all subsequent sources;
3. ϑ is the angle related with the aspect ratio of the panel (hw / Lw) , as specifed at on line 265. I improved the sentence on line 267;
4. I corrected the abscissa of Figure 4 as required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript has been revised thoroughly.
Some references has been Incorporated
Conclusion section has been well rewritten
Rest everything is fine. Great work in the field of dynamic and earthquake analysis
Author Response
Thanks for the suggestions provided.
MB
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Still line 265 reads "… .used to calculate the equivalent width strut, assuming 25 ° ≤θ≤50 °." Please make clear in the article what the angle is. Equation 3 defines the angle ϑ, not θ.
