Seismic Reduction Analysis of Super-Long Span Suspension Bridge with Lattice Composite Tower and Damping System: A Case of Study for Qiongzhou Strait Bridge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current study is on a topic of relevance and general interest to the readers of the journal. I found the paper to be overall well written and felt confident that the authors performed careful description of a case of study of a bridge in Qiongzhou. This paper analyzes the results of introduce various type of energy dissipation system in the composite towers used as a pillar of bridge. Results show that the lattice composite tower combine with a shear-link-beam damper in a bottom-middle-distribution could increase the seismic performance under far-fault and near-fault earthquake scenario. However, some very important points were inadequate or completely missing. I have very little confidence in one important analysis and came away with too many questions to be able to recommend this paper without major revision.
I have several significant concerns about the presentation and general results that should be addressed before publication. The results can't be verified in the future as the authors does not mention a minimum geometry description of the lattice composite tower modeled (e.g., cross section areas) and the boundary condition of model. This is necessary because the FEM model results cannot analyze in depth and detail manner form the available data use in this study and the authors may be assumed and/or stablished some particular criteria. Also, the calibration of model or the significance of simulated results can be explained more detailed (i.e. model update procedure, e.g. stiffness or masses modification or why experimental and FEM results can be compare). I assume that is what the authors have done, but this is not explicitly stated. Also, the authors may provide some references about the previous damper system proposed in page 6, section 4.1, first paragraph, e.g., Zhou et al. (2020).
* The title may include at the end the words "A case of study for QiongZhou starint bridge"
* The results presented in section 5.1 to 5.3 may be enriched by explaining the results with published reports, technical notes, and papers in this kind of bridges.
* Page 1, Section 1 “introduction”, first paragraph, the references used to justify the problem are very old. The authors should provide new evidence of the gap in the research topic.
* All information taken from other studies should be a reference within the text and should be listed in the reference section, e.g.:
- Section 1 "introduction", first paragraph, the sentence: " However, the distance between two main tower columns of long-span suspension bridge is usually large, which is not convenient to install energy dissipation and seismic reduction equipment..."
- Section 1 "introduction", first paragraph, the sentence: "The seismic response control for the main tower column of long-span suspension bridge still exists practical problem..."
- Section 1 "introduction", second paragraph, the sentence: "The damping system is also an important structural protection system for important bridge structure, and it has been adopted in bridges since 1990s in China...."
* The authors may provide some examples in page 2, Section 1 "introduction", second paragraph, last sentence, at the end of the sentence “Some methods have been proposed to study the seismic responses of long-span suspension bridge under near-fault earthquake, and the seismic response reduction measures are also widely proposed”
* Page 3, section 2.2, second paragraph, please clarify the references or criterion used to damping ratios assumptions in the sentence “The damping ratio for the first two modes is set as 0.8%”
* Page 3, section 2.3, first paragraph, please clarify the references or criterion used to stablish the sentence “The results of dynamic characteristics of super-long span suspension bridge are agreed with the initial design, which also proves the accuracy of the finite element mode”
* Page 4, section 3, first paragraph, please explain: Why the two seismic records are used?, To meet the reproductively of this study please clarify the characteristic of seismic record (e.g. station name, component). Also clarify if only the acceleration amplitude was scaled or frequency changes.
* Page 13, section 6 “conclusions”, the first conclusion may be removed or cited because it is really stablished in the literature.
* English, grammar and typo errors should be revised, for example: "... safety of the former...", "…affect the seismic response obviously...",
* The revised literature is very poor, only 26 references are presented, the authors need to include more references relevant to the research, and 12 references are old (> 10 years)
* Figures 17 should be described or removed.
I recommend including a comparison with the results recently published in the same matter:
Wang, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, H.; Ning, Y.; Huang, K.; Wang, W. Performance Evaluation of a Long-Span Cable-Stayed Bridge Using Non-Destructive Field Loading Tests. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2367. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052367
Mao, J., Wang, H., Xu, Y. et al. Deformation monitoring and analysis of a long-span cable-stayed bridge during strong typhoons. ABEN 1, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43251-020-00008-5
Zhang, C.; Fu, G.; Lai, Z.; Du, X.; Wang, P.; Dong, H.; Jia, H. Shake Table Test of Long Span Cable-Stayed Bridge Subjected to Near-Fault Ground Motions Considering Velocity Pulse Effect and Non-Uniform Excitation. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6969. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10196969
Kuihua, M., Shengjiang, S., Guoqing, J., & Yamin, S. (2017). Static and dynamic mechanical properties of long-span cable-stayed bridges using CFRP cables. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2017.
Xie, W., & Sun, L. (2021). Experimental and numerical investigations on transverse seismic responses of soil-cable-stayed-bridge system subjected to transverse near-fault ground motions. Engineering Structures, 226, 111361.
Xu L, Zhang H, Gao J, Zhang C. Longitudinal seismic responses of a cable-stayed bridge based on shaking table tests of a half-bridge scale model. Advances in Structural Engineering. 2019;22(1):81-93. doi:10.1177/1369433218778662
Author Response
The authors appreciate very much the time and effort that the referees spent on reviewing this paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. In the revised manuscript, all the corresponding corrections are printed in blue. Please found the point-to-point reply to the review comments in the attachment.
Sorry for the delay due to the rainstorm affect in my hometown caused by the super Typhoon Doksuri.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Yan Zheng, Yimin Wang, Pu Zhang and Suchao Li , authors of the manuscript “Comparative study of super-long span suspension bridge with lattice composite tower and damping system under seismic ground motion“, your manuscript is written fine and the main line can be easily followed from top to bottom. Nonetheless there are some major issues to be addressed prior acceptance of your manuscript.
First of all, this manuscript shall be directed to the whole world, but seems to handle a local Chinese case with a provision of almost exclusive literature of China. In fact, from the (poor) 26 references, almost all from China, of which 25 out of 26 have been mentioned exclusively in the very first three paragraphs of the manuscript. The last, #26 is the only citation which has been considered for reasons of comparison, again based on a local study, appears in page 8. This absolutely unacceptable and will need a serious reconsideration prior approval of your manuscript. There are plenty of studies which are available online of hundreds of studies about super-long span suspension bridges being to close(r) distances of active geological faults and sensu strictu to be influenced by issues of (non-linear) seismic response(s). There is also a massive amount of studies of finite element model(s), also lacked to be mention at least one (!).
You mention that “It is important to investigate the seismic response control measures for the main tower to reduce its large seismic response.” However, you didn´t check the widespread literature about this topic at all. If its important, as you write, why lacking of an evaluation of the given data and information before continuing with the own proposal? In fact, there are already studies which have handled this theme satisfactory, within and outside of China, which did not find any mention in your manuscript such as:
Sun, L., & Xie, W. (2019). Full-model shaking table tests of seismic behavior of a super-long-span cable-stayed bridge with pile foundations. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 24(11), 04019102.; Lin, K. Q., Xie, L. L., Lu, X. Z., & Ye, L. P. (2015, September). Earthquake-induced collapse simulation of a super long span cable-stayed bridge based on an open source FE program. In IABSE Symp. Rep (Vol. 105, pp. 1-8).; Ren, L., Fang, Z., & Wang, K. (2019). Design and behavior of super-long span cable-stayed bridge with CFRP cables and UHPC members. Composites Part B: Engineering, 164, 72-81.; Pan, S., Wang, J., Fan, S., Tian, K., & Zhu, W. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Buffer and Damper Positions for Increasing the Seismic Performance of Suspension Bridge. Buildings, 13(1), 81.Etc.
Typical forms of expressions include long-lasting sentences, which could and should be divided for reasons of clarity. For example you need to change the last sentence of the abstract, as it is way too long and even confusing.
From: “The results indicated that lattice composite tower could significantly increase the seismic performance of super-long span suspension bridge, and the optimal damping system could markedly improve the energy dissipation ability of whole system, which could provide references to enhance the seismic safety of the super-long span suspension bridge under strong earthquakes.”
You may convert into:
“The results indicated that lattice composite tower could significantly increase the seismic performance of super-long span suspension bridge, while the optimal damping system could markedly improve the energy dissipation ability of whole system. Subsequently, this could provide references to enhance the seismic safety of the super-long span suspension bridge under strong earthquakes.”
Unfortunately, this form of texts are appearing frequently and should be avoided.
Undoubtfully, the proposed and applied methodology, the design of the proposed solution and the corresponding conclusions are fine and should be kept as they are, but should be compared with data, existing ideas and proposals of other similar studies, based on the same principles. Otherwise a real evaluation of the content of the manuscript will remain irrelevant. Once the aforementioned issues are addressed, the manuscript with its proposal will be welcome and should be published.
There are a few examples mentioned of how the text may need to be improved
Author Response
The authors appreciate very much the time and effort that the referees spent on reviewing this paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, and significantly guide our research. In the revised manuscript, all the corresponding corrections are printed in blue. Please found the point-to-point reply to the review comments in the attachment.
Sorry for the delay due to the rainstorm affect in my hometown caused by the Super Typhoon Doksuri.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
None
Reviewer 2 Report
Great improvement of the manuscript is given, also an increase of over 30% in international references as proposed. Introduction leads to the real background now. The entire text is more fluid and clearer than within the original submission. Congrats
