Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Simulation of the Dynamic Water Pressure inside an Arch Rib of an Arch Bridge Subjected to Seismic Excitation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper looks interesting but the reviewer cannot suggest publication because of the following reasons:
- The SPH method is well described, the validation of SPH is good but the paper fails with seismic response analysis which is the main concern according to title and introduction.
- In page 10, authors stated that they performed seismic response analysis using FEM. But there is almost no information about structural model.
1) Did you use a software or did you use your own FEM algorithms?
2) What are the material properties of the bridge? (i.e. density, elastic modulus, shear modulus etc.)
3) What about cross-sectional geometry of the arch rib?
4) What are the boundary conditions at the supports?
5) According to presented mode shapes, it looks like 3D modal analysis was performed using a software. Considering just 2nd and 4th modes is not acceptable by structural dynamics point of view.
6) Why there is no investigation about dynamic response of bridge by means of displacements and internal forces in structural elements?
Overall, the SPH and water sloshing problem are well presented but the seismic analysis part of the paper, which is the main novelty with inner water effects, is not acceptable. Therefore, the reviewer cannot suggest possible publication in Applied Sciences.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s)
The paper is good but need to overall minor language revision. Also need to improve the conclusions and results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper studies the dynamic pressure exerted on an arch rib by inner water exposed to ground motions using the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method.
The topic looks original to me. There is a gap in knowledge in this area which is addressed by this paper. The technique is almost unique in studying this phenomenon.
It appears that the seismic behavior of these types of structures is not extensively studied, which can be considered the study's main contribution.
I think the authors may need to discuss further artificial viscosity discussed on line 118.
Also, I believe the authors may need to discuss further the bench test and why this test is chosen for validation. What is specific about this experiment?
I wonder if the authors can add some discussion about the compressibility of the water and whether it can have a noticeable impact on the results.
The conclusion seems adequate to me, addressing the central question posed by the authors.
References also seem adequate to me.
Tables and figures seem acceptable to me.
Appendixes look unnecessary to me.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Herein are some minor comments which could be consider by the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript although in my opinion the authors present valuable results in the manuscript and the manuscript could be published after considering these minor comments.
Comments
1. Some general statements from the abstract should be removed and replaced by statements that show the author contribution.
2. The authors did not explain in page 10 how the dimensions of the arch rib are selected?
3. Results interpretation should be included in article 4.1 as well as 4.2
4. There is repetition for article number (4.3) in page 18
5. The authors did not justify in page No. 19 how the water depth limit is chosen and why the increment in depth was not constant
6. The quadratic fitting relationship formula in page 20 is based on 5 points only. So statistically, it could not consider as formula.
7. It's required to improve the conclusions in the manuscript by adding some numerical results and state them as a list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors revisions has changed my first impression and I believe the paper can be accepted for publication after the following minor revisions:
1) The value of modulus of elasticity is still missing (line:281).
2) As the finite element model of the study consists of beam elements, the literature should be improved by considering some research based on analytical formulations for arch bridge vibrations and seismic responses. These studies highlight that using a very small number of beam elements is enough to estimate in-plane (two-dimensional) free and forced vibration responses of arch bridges/arch frames when analytical based methods are used. The following papers may be useful:
https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-05-2021-0281
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113417
https://doi.org/10.21595/vp.2020.21291
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
