Seismic Wave Propagation Characteristics and Their Effects on the Dynamic Response of Layered Rock Sites
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Great work. I highly recommend this paper manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments. We will improve the quality of the paper as much as possible.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article addresses an important topic of the wave propagation characteristics through the layered rock mass sites and their influence on the seismic response of layered sites were studied, which is appreciated. The study include of numerical analysis for a multi-domain coupled analysis method is used to study the seismic response of the layered sites under earthquake excitation. Three generalized geological models of layered site are as follows: homogeneous site (Model 1), horizontal layered site (Model 2) and tilted layered site (Model 3) were analysed. The reviewer appreciates the efforts done in this paper, however, the reviewer has some concerns regarding the numerical modelling assumption (boundary condition) and some of the results and conclusions. Please check English language. In my opinion this paper should be subjected to the major revision.
Other comments:
- Please show the boundary condition in numerical model.
- In opinion of Reviewer the assumption of this research is incorrect “Ground motion is simulated by inputting waves at the infinite element boundary of the bottom of the models.” In real earthquake the seismic load is applied in three direction (X and Y – horizontal, and Z – vertical), thus using only one direction is incorrect. Please add additional direction of seismic load. In addition, the inputting waves on the bottom parts of the numerical models is not true. This assumption will true in research of the case of shaking table.
- Please add in numerical analysis additional seismic records (minimum 3 record according to Eurocode 8, Canadian and American Code) e.g. El Centro, Loma Prieta, Ancona etc. Using time history analysis with only one record is not acceptable. Please look on the other papers about seismic response on the structures (you can also, cited in the text these papers or additional papers, where in the analysis were used more than one records):
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104245,
- https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164493,
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106750,
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.001
In addition, the record, which was used has a low intensity. In stronger records (with high intensity) the results can be totally different or opposite.
And the end I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors.
Author Response
- The article addresses an important topic of the wave propagation characteristics through the layered rock mass sites and their influence on the seismic response of layered sites were studied, which is appreciated. The study include of numerical analysis for a multi-domain coupled analysis method is used to study the seismic response of the layered sites under earthquake excitation. Three generalized geological models of layered site are as follows: homogeneous site (Model 1), horizontal layered site (Model 2) and tilted layered site (Model 3) were analysed. The reviewer appreciates the efforts done in this paper, however, the reviewer has some concerns regarding the numerical modelling assumption (boundary condition) and some of the results and conclusions. Please check English language. In my opinion this paper should be subjected to the major revision.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We sought the help of professional English polishing institution, and strictly checked and revised the English of the paper.
Other comments:
- Please show the boundary condition in numerical model.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comment. We have added the boundary condition in numerical model.
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of the boundary conditions of the numerical model.
- In opinion of Reviewer the assumption of this research is incorrect “Ground motion is simulated by inputting waves at the infinite element boundary of the bottom of the models.” In real earthquake the seismic load is applied in three direction (X and Y – horizontal, and Z – vertical), thus using only one direction is incorrect. Please add additional direction of seismic load. In addition, the inputting waves on the bottom parts of the numerical models is not true. This assumption will true in research of the case of shaking table.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comment. In this work, it is assumed that ground motion is input through the interface between finite-element and infinite-element at the bottom of the numerical model. In practical earthquake, seismic load is applied in three directions, but in the dynamic analysis, in order to reduce the workload of analysis and calculation, according to the basic theory of plane problem, the space problem can be simplified into plane strain problem. Therefore, unidirectional seismic waves are used for loading in this study.
- Please add in numerical analysis additional seismic records (minimum 3 record according to Eurocode 8, Canadian and American Code) e.g. El Centro, Loma Prieta, Ancona etc. Using time history analysis with only one record is not acceptable. Please look on the other papers about seismic response on the structures (you can also, cited in the text these papers or additional papers, where in the analysis were used more than one records):
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104245,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164493,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106750,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.001
In addition, the record, which was used has a low intensity. In stronger records (with high intensity) the results can be totally different or opposite.
And the end I hope that my comments will be helpful for the authors.
Response: We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comment. We refer to the above literatures and cite them in the paper.
Pang, R., Xu, B., Zhou, Y., Song, L. (2021). Seismic time-history response and system reliability analysis of slopes considering uncertainty of multi-parameters and earthquake excitations. Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 136, No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104245
Pilarska, D., Maleska, T. (2021) Numerical Analysis of Steel Geodesic Dome under Seismic Excitations. Materials, Vol. 14, No. 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164493
Labanda NA, Sottile MG, Cueto LA, Sfriso AO. (2021) Screening of seismic records to perform time-history dynamic analyses of tailings dams: A power-spectral based approach. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106750
Kostinakis, K.G. , Athanatopoulou, A.M., Avramidis, I.E. (2011) Sectional forces for seismic design of r/c frames by linear time history analysis and application to 3d single-story buildings. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.09.001
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper title: Wave propagation characteristics and dynamic response of layered rock sites subject to seismic excitation using multi-domain coupled analysis method
The manuscript investigates the seismic response of layered sites where a multi-domain coupled analysis method was proposed. Three finite-element models with infinite element boundaries for layered sites were analyzed. The results of the time-frequency joint analysis show that stratum and elevation have an impact on the wave propagation characteristics and dynamic response of the layered sites.
The manuscript is very well-written and organized and it makes a good contribution to the field. Thus, I recommend accepting the manuscript to be published in the journal after checking the manuscript for grammatical errors and typos such as that in lines 150 and 151 where the mass matrix, [M], has a dot over it which confuses the reader as if it were a Newtonian notation.
Author Response
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comment. We sought the help of professional English polishing institution, and strictly checked and revised the English of the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally is ok, but please check the template of this Journal.
