Numerical Investigation of the Seismic-Induced Rocking Behavior of Unbonded Post-Tensioned Bridge Piers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript numerically compares four widely-used base rocking models in predicting the seismic response of unbonded post-tensioned bridge piers under both cyclic and earthquake loading. Based on the experimental data, the difference in recommended contact parameter values between simulating the cyclic and dynamic behavior of PRC piers are highlighted and quantified.

The manuscript is of good quality and overall clear. The subject, as well as the results produced, are of interest to the community and, in the reviewer's opinion, deserve publication. However, some revising is needed before publication can be offered. Specific comments follow.

Comment 1: Grammar and word spelling mistakes:

(1) Section 2.2.2, first paragraph: The "Self-Centeing" was incorrectly written as "SelfCenteing ";

(2) Section 3.2, first paragraph. The "β_EP and α" was incorrectly written as "β_EP and α";

(3) Section 4.4. Second paragraph. The "demands" was incorrectly written as "demand".

Comment 2: If Fig.1 is sourced from existing literatures, please provide the appropriate citation.

Comment 3: Why the target drift is selected as 3.2%? Is this the ultimate drift of the pier?

Comment 4: The size of Figure 20 should be adjusted.

Comment 5: The following relevant papers may be referenced or cited if necessary.

“Lifetime seismic resilience assessment of a sea-crossing cable-stayed bridge exposed to long-term scour and corrosion”

“An advanced assessment framework for seismic resilience of railway continuous girder bridge with multiple spans considering 72h golden rescue requirements”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

the Article is of some interest for readers in the field of bridge designing and building. However, there are some notes which, in my opinion, must be revised before manuscript’s promotion:

 

Abstract:

Please add research relevance information and object.

 

1. Introduction:

In this section, more attention should be paid to the research methodology: methods of seismic-induced rocking behavior research (not modelling, as it is given in section 2. “Development of numerical models”. Also, the relations to the current and perspective problems of unbonded post-tensioned bridge piers constructing in seismic-active zones should be given in this section.

 

2. Development of numerical models

Please give detailed explanation for Figures 3-6 and Table 1.

After Figure 9, the brief summary should be given for generalizing of the numerical models.

 

3. Comprehensive performance assessment of the MCS models

The summary of MCS models is should be given after Figure 14. Also, the analysis of Figure 14 should be more comprehensive.

 

4. Validation on the cyclic responses

This section looks quite comprehensive but in subsection 4.4. “Validation evaluation”, Figure 20 which reflects calculations obtained with equation (5), needs detailed explanations with comparison of numbers.

 

5. Comparison with shaking table testing responses

As I could see from this chapter, it combines main achievements and findings (like Results section) and the elements of Discussion section.

So I suppose that the article would win if the Authors show research issues and future perspectives, its advances over existing studies.

 

6. Conclusions

Please add some methodological findings and the results of models’ comparison.

 

Good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

I noticed spelling and grammatical errors in the text, please proofread the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good luck!