Bridge Fire Vulnerability Hierarchy Assessment Based on the Weighted Topsis Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Bridge fire vulnerability hierarchy assessment based on weighted TOPSIS method. The detailed comments are listed below:

1. Linguistic competence needs to be highly improved, and the expression of academic ideas should rigorous and accurate. For example, “the ability of the bridge to resist the damage caused by fire” should be replaced by “fire resistance of bridges”. Check the manuscript thoroughly.

2. The first letter should be capitalized in Figure 3.

3. Should the index system consider these factors, such as section type of bridge girders, cross-sea bridge, overpass and so on?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents bridge fire vulnerability assessment based on weighted TOPSIS method. The authors proposed vulnerability assessment method that can be considered the susceptibility to fire, its resistance to reversal, and its exposure during a fire. This topic is interesting, however, some revisions still need to be considered.

1. There are many factors affecting the structural fire vulnerability. Please give the selection basis for relevant classification showed in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Probably the authors need to pay more attention to the relevant basic literature.

2. Is the fire vulnerability able to take into consideration some factors, such as fire characteristics, material properties degradation, structure response under fire and vehicle loads. Do different bridge structural types need to be selected for sensitivity analysis?

3. How to ensure the credibility and applicability of this study? Is the existing test data and fire accidents on bridge can be considered in this study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

- The reason of adoption of improved TOPSIS is still weak. Why did the problem require the weighted TOPSIS method? Can the study apply other MCDM methods which have the built-in weighting calculation process (e.g. AHP, ANP, etc.)? If any method can be applied to the study, the discussions and limitations of works should mention on this issue.

- The literature review section should focus more on past related studies especially the usage of MCDM methods (and improved MCDM methods) in bridge fire vulnerability.

- Discussion part must be added, and focusing on comparing results with past works for both case study perspective and the perspective of improved method. Consider the advantages and disadvantages (strengths and weaknesses too) of your work comparing to past related studies.

- To better provide the significance of non-financial criteria only applied in this MCDM work, therefore, some related studies should be cited including DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011, DOI: 10.1504/IJLIC.2015.067840, DOI: 10.1109/ECTIDAMTNCON53731.2022.9720385 

- Limitations and practical implication must be added to the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line354：The consequences of fire on bridges and other structural projects are 354 devastating. 

 

Language expression inappropriate here. Checking for such problems.

Author Response

Dear Professor, thank you very much for pointing out my mistake. I made a correction in line 335 of the original article. Besides, I will strengthen my English study so as to write better articles.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The reason of adoption of improved TOPSIS is still weak. Why did the problem require the weighted TOPSIS method? Can the study apply other MCDM methods which have the built-in weighting calculation process (e.g. AHP, ANP, etc.)? If any method can be applied to the study, the discussions and limitations of works should mention on this issue.

Validation: Done (but should better highlight the benefits of proposed method to the focused problem)

2. The literature review section should focus more on past related studies especially the usage of MCDM methods (and improved MCDM methods) in bridge fire vulnerability.

Validation: Done

3. Discussion part must be added, and focusing on comparing results with past works for both case study perspective and the perspective of improved method. Consider the advantages and disadvantages (strengths and weaknesses too) of your work comparing to past related studies.

Validation: Done

4. To better provide the significance of non-financial criteria only applied in this MCDM work, therefore, some related studies should be cited including DOI: 10.1016/j.acme.2017.04.011, DOI: 10.1504/IJLIC.2015.067840, DOI: 10.1109/ECTIDAMTNCON53731.2022.9720385 

Validation: Not done (cannot see line 125-132 in revised manuscript, references have not been cited)

5. Limitations and practical implication must be added to the paper.

Validation: Done

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

All my comments have been properly addressed. Now, the paper can be accepted for publication.