Assessment of Modal Characteristics of Steel–Concrete Composite Girder Bridge with V-Shaped Piers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept

Author Response

Thank you for your review

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presented a numerical analysis study for assessing the dynamic performance of a conventional composite steel-concrete bridge’s girder supported by V-shaped piers. In general, the study is interesting and well discussed the methodology and results. Following some comments that are needs to be considered to further improve the technical paper:

·         The abstract is quite general and could be more informative by highlighting the main problem of the study, where it needs to clarify why this study is suggested?. In another word, the main objective of this research needs to be clearly highlighted.

·         The abstract can be improved by presenting the key results established from the numerical investigation.

·         The related background and literature of this study are good, but needs to discuss more related references, specifically this research is investigating a very popular structural system that is adopted globally. Could discuss additional 5-7 related references, for example, but not limited to these topics: 

1.    State of the art on the time-dependent behaviour of composite steel–concrete structures

2.    Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges: Design, Life Cycle Assessment, Maintenance, and Decision-Making

3.    Investigation on shear behavior of studs and PBL shear connectors in steel-concrete hybrid bridge girder

4.    Experiment Analysis on Crack Resistance in Negative Moment Zone of Steel-Concrete Composite Continuous Girder Improved by Interfacial Slip

5.    Application of Partial Shear Connection in Steel–Concrete Semi-Continuous Composite Girder Bridges

           ·         The results are well discussed and presented in the manuscript

·  The conclusions could be further interesting to the readers by highlighting the limitations of this study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1:The abstract is quite general and could be more informative by highlighting the main problem of the study, where it needs to clarify why this study is suggested?. In another word, the main objective of this research needs to be clearly highlighted.

The abstract can be improved by presenting the key results established from the numerical investigation.

Response 1: The abstract has been improved to emphasise the objectives of the study

Point 2: The related background and literature of this study are good, but needs to discuss more related references, specifically this research is investigating a very popular structural system that is adopted globally. Could discuss additional 5-7 related references, for example, but not limited to these topics:

1. State of the art on the time-dependent behaviour of composite steel–concrete structures

2.Steel-Concrete Composite Bridges: Design, Life Cycle Assessment, Maintenance, and Decision-Making

3. Investigation on shear behavior of studs and PBL shear connectors in steel-concrete hybrid bridge girder

4.Experiment Analysis on Crack Resistance in Negative Moment Zone of Steel-Concrete Composite Continuous Girder Improved by Interfacial Slip

5.Application of Partial Shear Connection in Steel–Concrete Semi-Continuous Composite Girder Bridges

Response 2: Seven more relevant references are discussed in the introduction

Point 3: The conclusions could be further interesting to the readers by highlighting the limitations of this study.

Response 3: The limitations of this paper are discussed in the conclusion section

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

REVIEW

on article

Assessment of dynamic characteristics of steel-concrete composite girder bridge with V-shaped piers

Yong ZENG, Xuan HE,Yongqi LI, Jianting ZHOU

SUMMARY

The article is devoted to the study of the dynamic behavior of a steel-reinforced concrete compound continuous bridge with V-shaped supports of a rigid structure.

Despite the fact that the topic is interesting and relevant, the presented article does not reveal the scientific problem, and the results are presented poorly. 

COMMENTS

1.    The first observation is that the authors did not formulate the scientific problem in the Abstract and Introduction. I mean the scientific deficit in dynamic performance of bridge structures that exists at the present time. Authors should rearrange the Abstract. Editors strongly recommended authors should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. Then the abstract will fully meet the requirements of the Materials journal.

2.    The authors presented a literature review in the Introduction. At the same time, it looks poor, because there is not enough quantitative analysis obtained by other researchers for such a topic problem as Dynamic characteristics. Then there will be a clear understanding of the scientific novelty of the study.

3.    The References list does not match the requirements of the Applied Sciences journal. In addition, please provide with DOI every source.

4.    The literature review in the Introduction section contains only 13 sources, and only 7 from which were published after 2018. I recommend the authors to add 20-30 more sources regarding this theme.

5.    The purpose of the article is not given, the purpose of the article can be judged from the last phrase of the Introduction: "...the effect of shear connectors on the overall structural self-vibration characteristics of bridges, and the study of shear composite connectors in steel-concrete...". This goal does not correspond to the title of the article, since it significantly narrows the scope of research.

6.    Figures and Graphs are of poor quality, uninformative and do not meet the requirements of the journal.

7.    The structure of the article differs from the requirements of the journal and does not contain a Materials and Methods section. As a result, research methodology is poorly presented.

8.    A significant part of the article is a modal analysis of the structure. This is the simplest, and I would say, the entry level of dynamic analysis. It shows the main resonant frequencies and is important when compared with the frequency response of external loads. I didn't see it in the article.

9.    Has the model been verified? How did the authors ensure the reliability of the results?

10. The article does not have a Discussion section. The authors should conduct a detailed analysis of the results obtained and compare with the data of other researchers.

11. I recommend the authors to revise the Conclusion. The Title of the article, the purpose of the article and the Conclusion should correspond.

12. I recommend the authors revised style and grammar of the article. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The first observation is that the authors did not formulate the scientific problem in the Abstract and Introduction. I mean the scientific deficit in dynamic performance of bridge structures that exists at the present time. Authors should rearrange the Abstract. Editors strongly recommended authors should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. Then the abstract will fully meet the requirements of the Materials journal.

Response 1: Improvements to the summary have been made in response to suggestions

Point 2: The authors presented a literature review in the Introduction. At the same time, it looks poor, because there is not enough quantitative analysis obtained by other researchers for such a topic problem as Dynamic characteristics. Then there will be a clear understanding of the scientific novelty of the study.

Response 2: Relevant literature review added to the introduction

Point 3: The References list does not match the requirements of the Applied Sciences journal. In addition, please provide with DOI every source.

Response 3: References have been edited as required by the journal

Point 4: The literature review in the Introduction section contains only 13 sources, and only 7 from which were published after 2018. I recommend the authors to add 20-30 more sources regarding this theme.

Response 4: Relevant references published in the last 3 years have been added

Point 5: The purpose of the article is not given, the purpose of the article can be judged from the last phrase of the Introduction: "...the effect of shear connectors on the overall structural self-vibration characteristics of bridges, and the study of shear composite connectors in steel-concrete...". This goal does not correspond to the title of the article, since it significantly narrows the scope of research.

Response 5: The purpose of the study is highlighted in the abstract

Point 6: Figures and Graphs are of poor quality, uninformative and do not meet the requirements of the journal

Response 6: Figures have been reformatted to meet journal requirements

Point 7: The structure of the article differs from the requirements of the journal and does not contain a Materials and Methods section. As a result, research methodology is poorly presented.

Response 7: The article structure has been modified according to the journal template

Point 8(9): A significant part of the article is a modal analysis of the structure. This is the simplest, and I would say, the entry level of dynamic analysis. It shows the main resonant frequencies and is important when compared with the frequency response of external loads. I didn't see it in the article. Has the model been verified? How did the authors ensure the reliability of the results?

Response 8(9): For reasons of space, the shortcomings of this section are mentioned in the conclusion section

Point 10: The article does not have a Discussion section. The authors should conduct a detailed analysis of the results obtained and compare with the data of other researchers.

Response 10: Accepted, this shortcoming is also mentioned in the conclusion section

Point 11: I recommend the authors to revise the Conclusion. The Title of the article, the purpose of the article and the Conclusion should correspond

Response 11: The conclusion has been revised

Point 12: I recommend the authors revised style and grammar of the article.

Response 12: Changes to the grammar of the abstract and introduction

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors corrected some comments regarding Abstract, References, Introduction.

However, the main remarks have not been corrected.

The graphic part still needs improvement.

The dynamic analysis was performed primitively, and the authors limited themselves to modal analysis only.

Little informative graphs and tables are presented.

The scientific novelty of the article is unclear and has not been identified by the authors.

Author Response

Point 1:The graphic part still needs improvement.

Response 1: What are the requirements for the image part to be modified, I hope you can point out (such as pixel requirements, image size requirements, etc.), thanks!

Point 2:The dynamic analysis was performed primitively, and the authors limited themselves to modal analysis only.

Response 2:The dynamic analysis section was not analyzed in depth and has now been removed

Point 3:The scientific novelty of the article is unclear and has not been identified by the authors.

Response 3:The scientific novelty of the article: first, the special characteristics of the bridge structure, second, the use of finite element software to establish a two-cell rod system model of the background bridge, and improve the original model by calculating the equivalent shear stiffness of the shear nail group so that it can more accurately simulate the shear joints.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the article, but my comments remain unresolved.

1. The article states "Assessment of dynamic characteristics...". But only modal characteristics are considered. I suggest the authors to change the title of the article.

2. Scientific novelty. It is the most important element of a scientific publication. How did the authors formulate it?

"...first, the special characteristics of the bridge structure, second, the use of finite element software to establish a two-cell rod system model of the background bridge, and improve the original model by calculating the equivalent shear stiffness of the shear nail group so that it can more accurately simulate the shear joints."

What exactly are the special characteristics of the bridge structure? The second part of the novelty is completely incomprehensible.

3. The quality of figures 1-5 is unsatisfactory. According to Figures and Schemes magazine, must be sufficiently high resolution (minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher). Figures 14, 15 the scale on the right is illegible and contains Chinese letters.

Author Response

Point 1: The article states "Assessment of dynamic characteristics...". But only modal characteristics are considered. I suggest the authors to change the title of the article.

Response 1: As suggested, the title has now been changed to Assessment of modal characteristics of steel-concrete composite girder bridge with V-shaped piers

Point 2: Scientific novelty. It is the most important element of a scientific publication. How did the authors formulate it?

Response 2: In this paper, the theory of calculating the equivalent stiffness of the shear nail group is introduced into the two-unit rod system model in the context of a steel-concrete combined continuous V-shaped piers continuous rigid structure bridge, so that the model can be optimized to accurately simulate the effect of shear joints. I think this is a scientific novelty

Point 3:The quality of figures 1-5 is unsatisfactory. According to Figures and Schemes magazine, must be sufficiently high resolution (minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher). Figures 14, 15 the scale on the right is illegible and contains Chinese letters

Response 3: Based on the comments, the image quality has now been improved

Thank you very much for the expert's opinion, such as where still need to be corrected hope that experts pointed out