An Innovative Construction Technique for Curved Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, the work is interesting and represents an innovative construction technique.
Recommended changes are:
The abstract exceeds the maximum length, it needs to follow the journal requirements. The literature review is neither extensive nor updated. The introduction omits the technological developments between the Romans and today. In regard to technical aspects, did the authors test a catenary arch? which is the design curvature? More data about the block cutting would enrich the experiment.
Line 11: is Heritage a name? reword this sentence
Line 99-103 needs rewording
Indicate GRA angle in fig. 5
Lines 164-165 needs rewording
Author Response
The abstract exceeds the maximum length, it needs to follow the journal requirements.
the abstract was re-considered and now the length respects the journal standards.
The literature review is neither extensive nor updated. The introduction omits the technological developments between the Romans and today.
the background was significantly improved as suggested
In regard to technical aspects, did the authors test a catenary arch? which is the design curvature?
yes, we did. a comment on this aspect was added in the new version manuscript
More data about the block cutting would enrich the experiment.
the suggestion was implemnted in the new version manuscrip
Line 11: is Heritage a name? reword this sentence
accomplished
Line 99-103 needs rewording
accomplished
Indicate GRA angle in fig. 5
GRA was not reported in fig. 5 specifically because it illustrate already placed arch, thus no GRA is evident. the suggestion from the reviewer cannot be found valid.
Lines 164-165 needs rewording
accomplished
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- abstract is too long and should be shorterned
- introduction is too short and should include state of the art work on the topic. for example information about flexi arch should be included in it.
- figure 3 needs to be re-drawn
- the design process need further elaboration. Indication on the use of advanced numerical method to be used for the assessment of such structures is requiered.
- V Sarhosis, S De Santis, G de Felice. 2016. A review of experimental investigations and assessment methods for masonry arch bridges STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, 26
- AM D’Altri, V Sarhosis, G Milani, J Rots, S Cattari, S Lagomarsino, ...2019. Modeling strategies for the computational analysis of unreinforced Masonry structures: Review and classification, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 1-33
- G Milani, PB Lourenço, A Tralli, Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls, Part I: Failure surfaces, Computers & structures 84 (3-4), 166-180
- PJBB Lourenço 1996. Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD thesis, Netherlands
Author Response
- bstract is too long and should be shorterned
the abstract was re-considered and now the length respects the journal standard
- introduction is too short and should include state of the art work on the topic. for example information about flexi arch should be included in it.
the background was significantly improved as suggested
- figure 3 needs to be re-drawn
accomplished
- the design process need further elaboration. Indication on the use of advanced numerical method to be used for the assessment of such structures is requiered.
- V Sarhosis, S De Santis, G de Felice. 2016. A review of experimental investigations and assessment methods for masonry arch bridges STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, 26
- AM D’Altri, V Sarhosis, G Milani, J Rots, S Cattari, S Lagomarsino, ...2019. Modeling strategies for the computational analysis of unreinforced Masonry structures: Review and classification, Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 1-33
- G Milani, PB Lourenço, A Tralli, Homogenised limit analysis of masonry walls, Part I: Failure surfaces, Computers & structures 84 (3-4), 166-180
- PJBB Lourenço 1996. Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD thesis, Netherlands
accomplished
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Most of suggested changes were partially accomplished.
The literature review does not show an exhaustive research, and it is not structured into paragraphs of the same subject. Statements are not supported with cites. Literature review is not the section to assess the pros and cons of other types of arch construction methods. Nothing about other construction systems without scaffolding.
line 177, 178: why is pure compression despite of the curvature? it needs a more detailed explanation
Conclusions do not point out any limitation only advantages. Needs to make a deeper insight
Author Response
Comment: The literature review does not show an exhaustive research, and it is not structured into paragraphs of the same subject. Statements are not supported with cites. Literature review is not the section to assess the pros and cons of other types of arch construction methods. Nothing about other construction systems without scaffolding.
Answer: The literature review was considered and extended as in the possibilities of the authors. Moreover, it was validated by the European Patent Center (EPC), which conducted and indipendent research about the state of the art. No conflicts were found by this international bureau.
Other construction systems, without scaffolding, are reported in the paper, also according to the results of the state of the art research above mentioned (EPC). If the reviewer knows further methods, published in the literature, please share the knowledge. The authors would be glad to update the manuscript.
Comment: line 177, 178: why is pure compression despite of the curvature? it needs a more detailed explanation
Answer: As well-known the optimal curvature correspionds to the case of trust-line full inside the geometry of the arch. As a conseguence all the trsversal cross-sections are full compressed. This follows the principle of the mechanics and stability of arched structures.
Comment: Conclusions do not point out any limitation only advantages. Needs to make a deeper insight
Answer: the suggestion was considered and a new sentence was added into the conclusions section; i.e.:
"On the other hand, the bond between the FRP and the substrate should be carefully assessed, requiring skilled manpower."
Reviewer 2 Report
accept as is
Author Response
thanks for all the precious comments, that contributed to improve the quality of the paper
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed changes have not been fully accomplished.
Neither is the EPC a peer reviewer for scientific articles, nor is the state of the art for detecting patent conflicts.
Even though to update the literature is not the reviewer´s task, there are important research work which is not cited (e.g. Wendland, Dieste, catalan vaults).
Conclusions should widen the weaknesses and/or detected gaps for future research.
Author Response
additional parts are red colored in the new version manuscript.
- the authors produced an additional effort to improve the state of the art by following the reviewer's directions. it is hoped that the current version can be considered exhaustive.
- as regards the conclusions, the limitations of the proposal have already been previously illustrated on the basis of what the authors think about it. in addition, a new sentence was added reasonably specifying that potential limits not highlighted by the simple realization of the prototype may occur following future work tests that are in any case in progress. Again the authors hope to have met the auditor's expectations. in this regard, we want to remember that the manuscript has the purpose of illustrating the idea while quantitative analyzes will be better described in the next works (future developments are stated into the paper) showing all the laboratory observations: advantages and disadvantages clearly manifested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
