Geotechnical Design Practices and Soil–Structure Interaction Effects of an Integral Bridge System: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper reviews the state of the art of the interaction between the soil and the structure of the integral bridge through the influence of temperature. It is well organized with a review of many recent and older references from the United States and beyond. It is an interesting area of research and with a minor revision is worth publishing.
- The paper primarily discusses the effect of temperature on the interaction of soil and integral bridge design. You use much broader terms such as "Geotechnical Design Guidelines", "the geotechnical aspect of integral bridges", etc. Emphasize in the title and in certain parts of the text that it is about the influence of temperature.
Author Response
Point 1: The paper primarily discusses the effect of temperature on the interaction of soil and integral bridge design. You use much broader terms such as "Geotechnical Design Guidelines", "the geotechnical aspect of integral bridges", etc. Emphasize in the title and in certain parts of the text that it is about the influence of temperature
Response 1: Actually, most of the effects come from temperature changes and other as well (e.g. Vehicle load, creep, shrinkage and seismic). But predominantly from thermal changes. Therefore, it hasn't specifically mentioned only because of temperature in the title and subtitles. But still, it has been revised in some part of the contents and specified as a consequence of the temperature, if the guidelines and the works has are only related to thermal induced displacements.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
Presented study is just a short and limited review of geotechnical guidelines and solutions for Integral Bridges. Structure of a review paper is properly composed, with a short introductory part presenting principles and motivation of the current study. Introduction is followed by a set of definitions which is very helpful in further reading. There is one problem concerning copyrights of Figure 1 that is probably taken from [57] or [58] and it should be clearly stated. Section 3 is focused on main subject of the study e.g. "Geotechnical Design Guidelines and Practices for Integral Bridge System". It should be clearly stated again that it comprises information from USA, UK and Australia/New Zealand. Section 4 is original Authors' input and presents Authors' comments to previously juxtaposed information. Conclusions seem a little bit trivial to me and I'd appreciate some precise recommendation for a design practice instead of comments on necessity of further studies.
Anyway, I think it is a valuable study and should be published after necessary editorial corrections.
References should be listed in order of appearance. Authors should avoid group references in the introductory part. Every reference deserves to be individually introduced to the Reader to emphasize its importance for the state of the art and for the current study.
Personally, I do not understand why information from Appendix 2 are not inserted to the body text of the study.
Best regards
Author Response
Point 1: There is one problem concerning copyrights of Figure 1 that is probably taken from [57] or [58] and it should be clearly stated.
Response 1: The citation/reference for the Figure 1 has been updated. It has written as after [25] to make it more clear. The reference has been updated in order of appearance.
Point 2: Section 3 is focused on main subject of the study e.g. "Geotechnical Design Guidelines and Practices for Integral Bridge System". It should be clearly stated again that it comprises information from USA, UK and Australia/New Zealand.
Response 2: The content has been revised to state that it contains information from USA, UK, Canada, Japan, Europe and Australia and New Zealand. The practices from Japan, Canada and some European countries has been added in the revised draft.
Point 3: Section 4 is original Authors' input and presents Authors' comments to previously juxtaposed information. Conclusions seem a little bit trivial to me and I'd appreciate some precise recommendation for a design practice instead of comments on necessity of further studies.
Response 3: The conclusion has been revised. Now, its more about the current practices and recommendation for a design practice. In order to put emphasize on the current practices in the conclusion, practices from few more countries has been added in the body section.
Point 4: References should be listed in order of appearance.
Response 4: References has been updated in order of appearance.
Point 5: Authors should avoid group references in the introductory part. Every reference deserves to be individually introduced to the Reader to emphasize its importance for the state of the art and for the current study.
Response 5: The references has been breakdown. However, it still have some small group, as because stress ratcheting, and soil slumping and settlement issue in integral bridges has been studied by many researchers and confirmed that in their research findings.
Point 6: Personally, I do not understand why information from Appendix 2 are not inserted to the body text of the study.
Response 6: Appendix 2 is for the figure and some other further details discussed in Appendix 1. Because its hard to include the figure in the Table and it may not looks nice, its included separately in Appendix 2.
Thank you for all the valuable comments. We really appreciate that.
Many Thanks
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find my comments in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: Repetition of the content in section 3
Response 1: The content has revised to avoid the repetition.
