Simulation of Test Arch Based on Concrete Damage Plasticity Model and Damage Evolution Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript explains the Simulation of Test Arch Based on Concrete Damage Plasticity 2 Model and Damage Evolution Analysis. The following are the comments, 

 

Table 1,  kindly mentions why live load, locations are at 1 and 2.

Existing experiment data had been taken for simulation, in line 172, kindly explain load cases or give the citation  or table No, etc.,

In lines 160 to 166, the simulation by ABAQUS was explained.  Which element is used for modeling the reinforcement? Mesh size? Support condition?

In Figure 9, the X-axis represents the construction condition, in that unit is missing (kindly include it )

In line 242,  explain  panels a, b, c and d

 

In lines 294 and 300, Results I, II, III, and IV are mentioned; it would be better if they explain in a detailed manner

 

A typo error is there, kindly rectify it. 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled "Simulation of Test Arch Based on Concrete Damage Plasticity Model and Damage Evolution Analysis". Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches We have studied comments and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The responses to the comments of the reviewer can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting investigation has been performed by the authors of the manuscript. Using ABAQUS finite element software, the arch was simulated with a CDP model grounded on experimental data. The multiple test arch simulation models were constructed. Crafted commands for random porosity within ABAQUS and devised distinct mesh modules to depict structures under varying degrees of damage have been performed.

 

Comments and questions:

1.      It isn’t a good style to use “we” and “our”, since your team isn’t separated from scientific society, and it’s very difficult to define which part was performed by your team and which part was taken from the literature and other researcher. You need to revise this style to neutral from the 3-rd person.  As example: “The most susceptible areas within the arch structure were pinpointed”.

2.      There are no clear formulated goals of the investigation and what is done new in comparison with modelling of other researcher.

3.      Lines 91- 92. Reference to the loading point Nr.1 isn’t correct.

4.      There is lack reference to the Figures 2., 9.

5.      Authors need to add information, in lines 240-246, that this explanation about references to “a”, “b”, “c”, “d “. are regarding Figures 12-15.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's comments concerning our manuscript entitled " Simulation of Test Arch Based on Concrete Damage Plasticity Model and Damage Evolution Analysis" Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches We have studied comments and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval.The response to the reviewer's comments can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf