Tridimensional Long-Term Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Rate-Type Creep Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents interesting research which focuses on very important topic of influence of concrete creep on behavior of prestressed concrete structural elements.

The research topic of the manuscript is novel and it fits on the journal purpose.

The constitutive formulae with relevance to requirements of the European Standard EC2, American Standard ACI-209R-92 and RILEM recommendations made the major part of this article. They are applied into numerical applications.

The 3D FEM model of a simply supported, prestressed beam with I-shaped solid cross-section, a cantilever prestressed concrete box girder, and 3D FEM model of a "balanced cantilever type" bridge were computed according to European Standard EC2, American Standard ACI-209R-92 and the RILEM model.  

I recommend this paper for publication after addressing below minor points.

Formal shortcomings are marked in the attached PDF file.

The bibliography references shall be a bit extended by a modern, similar research studies regarding concrete creep, especially in early age.

For example the following reference can be suggested: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12030514

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Please read the entire text carefully. A few bugs have been caught. In addition, please review the equations carefully. Superscripts and subscripts are not always included.

2) Have the test results been compared with the laboratory results carried out by the authors?

3)How the creep results for the bridge were obtained. The described text lacks information on the methodology of obtaining them.

4)Was specialized equipment used for obtaining results for bridge, e.g. probes, permanently placed sensors? If so, which one?

5)Have the changing weather conditions been taken into account? After all, creep largely depends on the temperature and cyclical load.

6)How many years have measurements been obtained for the bridge and next transferred to the simulations?

7)Please explain why only the bridge was chosen as a comparative structure? Is the developed simulation method also suitable for large-scale buildings, e.g. collective residential buildings?

Author Response

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is interesting and well written.

The only major remark has to do with the references list. There are 14 papers (out of 28 research works) where Prof. Bažant is author/co-author. While Prof. Bažant’s contribution to the field is undisputable, the reference list cannot qualify as unbiased. Also considering the authors’ own works, the total number of works from other authors is limited to 10. The authors need to explain why there is limited reference to works from other authors, especially in the introduction where one would expect a thorough literature review that would justify the selected approach.

Some minor remarks:

• Could the authors please state the software used for the analysis?
• Fig. 14, 15: While it is possible for the reader to understand the trend of the cures, a better lineweight to reduce the spaces in the dashed lines would be preferable.

Author Response

See the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I received all answer on my comments. In this form I accept the manuscript for printing process.