While the benefits of prestressing and anchoring are well-documented, their application in earthquake-resistant construction faces several challenges:

1. Cost and Feasibility: Prestressing and anchoring systems often require higher initial investments, specialized materials, and skilled labor, which may deter their widespread adoption, especially in low-budget projects or regions with limited resources.

2. Complex Design and Maintenance: Incorporating these measures demands advanced design expertise and long-term maintenance to ensure functionality, which not all construction teams or owners prioritize.

3. Code and Standards Limitations: Building codes in some regions may not mandate such measures or lack specific guidelines for integrating prestressing in seismic design, leading to underutilization.

4. Risk Perception: In areas with moderate seismic risk, developers may underestimate the need for such advanced measures, favoring simpler solutions to meet minimum code requirements.

Promoting these techniques requires updating design codes, raising awareness of their benefits, and developing cost-effective applications to make them more accessible globally.

Dear Dr. Hasan Altawil

Thank you for your insightful comments. I completely agree with your observations regarding the challenges in applying prestressing and anchoring in earthquake-resistant construction. As you mentioned, the initial cost and the complexity of design and maintenance can be significant barriers, especially in regions with limited resources.

I also appreciate your point about the importance of updating building codes to better integrate these advanced techniques. It’s crucial to raise awareness of their benefits, as well as to explore cost-effective applications that can make them more accessible to a wider range of projects.

In my research, I have been focusing on how these methods can be optimized to enhance seismic resilience without significantly increasing costs, and I am looking forward to exploring further ways to address these challenges.

However, in critical and public-interest projects such as hospitals, bridges, and crowded areas, safety should take precedence over cost. An additional expense of around 5% of the total construction budget can save lives and protect properties.

There are also innovative solutions that can reduce costs without compromising efficiency. For example, applying this system to wind turbines could entirely eliminate the need for a concrete foundation, which relies on gravity, reducing the anchoring cost by up to 90%.

Furthermore, implementing this system in precast reinforced concrete houses with double, heavy-duty walls could increase the height of the floors. This would allow such constructions to be integrated into urban areas where multi-story buildings are often required.

These precast buildings, due to their industrialized production, are 30-50% more economical compared to conventional housing. Thus, costs would decrease while seismic protection would improve. It is worth noting that the proposed system performs more effectively in elongated walls, such as those used in precast houses.

Thank you again for your feedback, and I look forward to any further suggestions or thoughts you may have on this topic.