Semi-Active Control of Seismic Response on Prestressed Concrete Continuous Girder Bridges with Corrugated Steel Webs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a computational study on the use of semi active control system for the seismic response of prestressed continuous girders with corrugated metal webs. Overall, the methodology and discussion are sound. However, there are some editorial and technical comments that need to be addressed by the authors before the manuscript can be published.

 

Technical comments

1. The research work presented by the authors may be best described as a design problem rather than research activities. The novelty of the work and the contribution to research knowledge is unclear. Authors are encouraged to highlight the novelty of the research work (e.g. being novel algorithm, novel structural system…etc) so readers can benefit directly from.

2. Authors mentioned in lines (87-89) that there are few reports on the application of semi-active control methods in PC girder bridge with CSWs. However, authors did not address them in the background. Authors need to improve the background by presenting the findings of these reports and highlighting their novel approach w.r.t. current literature.

3. Authors shall provide more information on the specifics of MR damper system simulated in this study.

 

Editorial comments.

1. In many locations such as (lines 83-87, 185-189), authors provide very long sentences. This have been repeated in multiple other locations. Authors shall check English language and avoid very long sentences.

2. other minor editorial comments are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

On behalf of the co-authors of this manuscript, I would like to hereby express to Reviewer #1 our heartfelt appreciation. Special thanks to you for taking your valuable time to review this manuscript and providing useful comments to this manuscript. Please find the detail response in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes an application that is certainly of interest from the engineering point of view, but it is not clear what are the main scientific novelties of the paper. The authors should better explains what are the novelties and the scientific significance of the submitted manuscript.

A careful re-reading, made by a native english speaker, of the whole paper is strongly recommended to improve its readability.

 

Major remarks

Page 2, Intruduction, Lines 81-89: Please, better describe the main aims of the work presented in the paper and its originality.

Page 3, line 112: Please, better define the "quadratic index performance function". 

Page 4, equation 9: Please, better define f_dmax and f_dmin.

Page 4, lines 132-167: The authors report the following algorithm: Simple bing-bang control algorithm; optimal bang-bang control algorithm; maximum switching control algorithm; bounded bang-bang control algorithm; sliding control algorithm; bounded hrovat optimal control algorithm. Only three of these are described in the text. Please, calrifiy.

Page 4, lines 153-167: Please, rephrase these sentences to better desribe the Bounded Hrovat control algorithm.

Section 4: A more precise description of the semi-active control analysis model and of the Finite Element Model would be important to a better comprehension of the work.

Page 6, line 199: Please, better define "EI Centro seismic wave".

Page 9, line 289: Please, justifiy the choice of the value (8) for the adjustable coefficient. 

Minor Remarks

- Page 1, Abstract, Line 18: Please, substitute the term "reasonable" with a more suitable term.

- Page 1, line 39: Please, substitute "Be-cause" with "Because".

- Page 1, line 40: Please, substitute "re-searchers" with "researchers".

- Page 2, line 53: Please, substitute "seis-mic" with "seismic".

- Page 2, line 66: Please, substitute "ab-sorption" with "absorption".

- Page 2, line 75: Please, substitute "do-main" with "domain".

- Various typos, e.g., "effect s" at line 346.

Author Response

On behalf of the co-authors of this manuscript, I would like to hereby express to Reviewer #2 for taking your valuable time to review this manuscript and providing useful comments to this manuscript. Please find the detail response in the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all comments. I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable time and suggestions.