Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Quality of all the figures are very low. please improve it.

"The spatial system method(Abbreviated as SSM) has a perfect theoretical basis in structural analysis, and there is an urgent need in practice, which is easier to be recognized and accepted subjectively. " authors need to write only The spatial system method(SSM). Its sufficient.

3. Authors represent Table 2 in 2 section please combine it in one Table. avoid "Continued Table 2 Section dimensions and theoretical results of I-beam" these sentences.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Quality of all the figures are very low. please improve it.

Reply: Thanks for the comments of the reviewers. We have improved the quality of the pictures in the paper, as shown in paper.

 

(2) "The spatial system method(Abbreviated as SSM) has a perfect theoretical basis in structural analysis, and there is an urgent need in practice, which is easier to be recognized and accepted subjectively. " authors need to write only The spatial system method(SSM). Its sufficient.

Reply: Thanks for the comments of the reviewers, we have made modifications.

 (3) Authors represent Table 2 in 2 section please combine it in one Table. avoid "Continued Table 2 Section dimensions and theoretical results of I-beam" these sentences.

Reply: We have modified Table 2 and Table 3, as shown in paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The authors studied systematically the analysis principle of spatial system method of steel gate by using the combination of theoretical calculation, finite element analysis and prototype test. The paper is well organized and can be accepted after minor revision. Some suggestions:

- Introduction part can be improved. It should contain a critical review of literature, a presentation of the research gap, emphasis on the article's novelty and originality. Hence, the authors are recommended to improve this part, and more citations are recommended to be added.

- Figure 12, change positions of (a) and (b).

- The format of Table 4 should be consistent with other tables.

Author Response

Review comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors studied systematically the analysis principle of spatial system method of steel gate by using the combination of theoretical calculation, finite element analysis and prototype test. The paper is well organized and can be accepted after minor revision.

Some suggestions:

(1) Introduction part can be improved. It should contain a critical review of literature, a presentation of the research gap, emphasis on the article's novelty and originality. Hence, the authors are recommended to improve this part, and more citations are recommended to be added.

Reply: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. In the introduction, we have added and analyzed relevant research literature. For specific modifications, see the introduction and references of the paper. 

Added literature: In 1977, Lanzhou University used the finite element method to analyze the gate structure for the first time in China[41], but the analysis program compiled was not universal. In 1991, Jin Yahe et al. used SAP5 software to analyze the structure of radial gate, but the analysis process was not described and the analysis results were not compared[42]. In 2012, Xi Xiaoya et al. used ANSYS12.0 software to analyze the safety of radial gate, and also did not provide specific modeling and analysis process[43]. In 2022, Yao Jiahui and others used ANSYS18.0 software to analyze the deformation of the miter gate, and did not give the structural analysis principles[44]. Up to now, the seventh edition of the gate design code [16~22] has stated the spatial system method, but it has not clearly given the specific application standards and relevant principles, which restricts the transition process of the gate structure analysis from the plane system method to the spatial system method.

(2) Figure 12, change positions of (a) and (b). The format of Table 4 should be consistent with other tables.

Reply: We have changed positions of (a) and (b) in Figure 12. At the same time, we modified the format of Table 4 to keep consistent with other forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript deals with numerical analysis of hydraulic steel gate. The manuscript is organized well. Some comments are listed as follows.

(1) The material and mechanical parameters of the gate are missed. Please add these parameters in the manuscript.

(2) The first letter of one sentence should be uppercased. Please check and modified the sentences, such as “the deflection and normal stress of 10.0 m, 12.0 m, 14.0 m, 16.0”.

(3) The finite element software used should be given clearly.

(4) The boundary conditions in the FEM models should be illustrated clearly in details.

(5) The calculation method of the errors, such as in Fig. 7, needs to be given. Are the numerical results compared with the analytical one? What analytical model is used?

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of paper 1844617 - Study on Analysis Principle of Spatial System Method for Hydraulic Steel Gate

The authors present a work about applying the Spatial System Method onv large hydraulic gates for dams.

The subject fits on the scope of the journal, and it is pretty well written and organised, although it could be enhanced, for example, in the case of figures and captions.

Nevertheless, the main objection to its publication is that this reviewer has not clear the topic and aims of the work. 

This reviewer never eared about the Spatial System Method, the paper doesn't clarify exactly what it is and the only reference is in Chinese.  After reading completely the paper, it seems that it is just 3D FEA, or, at least, as the authors state in page 3, FEA is an special case os Spatial System Method. In conclusion, the work seems more like a guideline, which is not bad, but it is not research paper. In any case, the novelty of the work is questionable.

It is suggested to be rewritten considering the following points:

- State very clearly the objectives and scope of the work. 

- Defend the novelty of the work, giving international reference of previous similar works.

- Describe properly the methodology 

- Define properly the figures and write a descriptive caption for each of them.

- Describe properly the experimental measurements, with confidence intervals

Reviewer 3 Report

After keywords include the introduction section.

Include the aim or novelty in the introduction section.

Tables 2 and 3 required formatting.

Please correct the Table 4 caption.

Please provide abbreviations.

Discuss all Figures in detail.