Adriseismic Methodology for Expeditious Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a comprehensive data acquisition and decision-making strategy for masonry structures in prone seismic countries. The Adreisismic methodology is a program based on 6 countries surrounding the Adriatic and Ionian seas. The zone is quite actively seismic, while in the last decades, have been numerously stricken by severe earthquakes. In this light, also considering the similarities in construction techniques, it is important to address a unique methodology for reducing seismic risk. The proposed methodology is seen as e future relevant contribution on the matter.

The methodology includes a vast experience from the research and normative of those countries and incorporates it into a single data acquisition template. The approach considers advanced approaches for determining the material quality, the typology of construction and expected response, and vulnerability aspects in terms of failures and required retrofitting.

In this research, different case studies from different countries have been considered. The obtained results are coherent with the proposed methodology and presented very clearly. It is important to highlight that based on the observed case studies. The methodology provides a conservative evaluation, which means that the obtained data in situ give the most probable vulnerabilities.

The article is worthy to be published.

Here are two notes to be addressed

1- The index of structural response explained in lines 163-168 does not correspond with figure 1.

2- Table 3, requires some clarifications. The input for each characteristic is , I, II, or III. However, its meaning is not similar for all. Somewhere I, mean good quality that does not activate the mechanisms, and in others, the reverse. During data acquisition, this could lead to wrong data. In addition, it should be better clarified. For instance, the thrust of vaults is a number that is difficult to evaluate in the site. How a data recorder could distinguish between selecting categories a, I, II or III. 

Author Response

Point 1 - the image has been suitably modified and made consistent with the description in section 2.1.

Point 2 - A brief description of how the categories work and the general principle on which the category is chosen in the case of thrusts has been added to the manuscript (after table 3).

Reviewer 2 Report

In this study, the authors described a method for expeditious assessment of seismic risk associated with unreinforced masonry buildings. The methodology was developed for the Adriseismic project of the Interreg ADRION programme, with aim to develop and share tools for increasing cooperation and reducing seismic risk for 6 participating countries within the region surrounding the Adriatic and Ionian Sea. The method has so far been applied in urban areas of participating countries in the project, including Mirandola, Italy; Kaštela, Croatia, and Belgrade, Serbia. In parallel, the methodology has been validated by performing a detailed seis-20 mic assessment of more than buildings. In general, the topic is interesting, and a few questions are required to be well handled.

1. The authors performed the assessment framework of buildings, which is a great work. The reviewer suggests to focus more on the short comings of the existing references. The following papers related to the retrofitting and vulnerability framework can be included into the Intro and contents. 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104904; 

2. What is the primary advantage of the proposed framework with the existing well-known framework (e.g., PEER framework or PBEE framework)? Maybe some explanations can be given (as suggested in 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109838).

3. In section 3 Application of the ADRISEISMIC method on urban case studies, the authors give three examples (Mirandola case study, Kaštela case study, Belgrade case study). Thus, is there any limitation or drawback of the approach in assessment?

4. For the practical use of the approach, is there any software and program for simplification?

Author Response

Point 1 - As recommended, the bibliographic reference has been added in order to complete the introductory framework.

Point 2 - the reference was added as a useful comparison to the expeditious method proposed, the reasons that led to the definition of a new approach were also more detailed (chapter 1)

Point 3 - In chapter 3.4 some limitations of use have been added, together with some critical points.

Point 4 - The proposed system was developed on an Excel spreadsheet. Since it was not clear, the manuscript was modified, reiterating it in various points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please explain all the symbols of equations (1)-(12).

Lines 620-623: “There are no substantial differences between the two methods in terms of the variation of results proposed by the expeditious method, which results in good accuracy for a qualitative system.” Please provide more details about the advantages of the Adriseismic method.

Lines 648-650: “It was found that in large-scale applications (a large number of buildings and limited input data), loss of accuracy associated with the output is relatively low due to the wide range of the vulnerability and seismic risk classes.” Please explain.

Author Response

Point 1 - In order to keep the body of the article short,  it was decided to bring the explanation of the symbols of the equations into a separate section before the appendices 'Nomenclature'. 

Point 2 - As suggested, the advantage obtainable with such results has been emphasised 

Point 3 - The concept has been reworded to make it clearer

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The format of references should be adjusted. The paper can be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper can be published in its present form.