Research on One-Time Pouring Construction Technology of Side-Span Cast-In-Situ Section and Closed Section

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a pouring construction technology of side 2-span bridges. The analysis is based on a stress distribution, however the paper’s content and research significance is limited. The research methodology is not meticulous enough and there is only limited analysis, based on stress distribution. Unfortunately, overall the manuscript’s novelty and content is not adequate for the paper to be published as a research article.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English language is acceptable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on our paper. We truly appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our work. We acknowledge your comments regarding the limitations of our research methodology and analysis, particularly in terms of the depth and novelty of our findings. We carefully consider your suggestions for improvement and plan to address them as follows:

1. Enhancing research methodology: We reviewed our research methodology thoroughly and strive to ensure its rigor and accuracy. We aim to adopt a more comprehensive approach to analyze and validate our results. We have added some specific methods using finite element analysis.
2. Expanding the scope of research: We have further broaden the scope of our study, including more extensive data collection and analysis, as well as considering additional factors that may influence the outcomes.
3. Increasing the novelty of research outcomes: We endeavored to identify new research perspectives and innovative elements to enhance the research value and novelty of the paper, making it more appealing and acceptable.
4. All the changes were highlighted (in red) in the revision.

Once again, we appreciate your constructive feedback and suggestions. We are committed to making the necessary improvements based on your recommendations and look forward to presenting our revised research outcomes in the future.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article covers the topic of the construction of concrete bridges, with particular emphasis on the impact of temperature changes. The article presents very interesting and important engineering problems. The topic of the article is in scope of journal. The article is clearly written and edited. The assumptions used in the analysis are correct and appropriate at this stage of the analysis. However, I have some critical remarks. The article requires editorial corrections. Some citation numbers are displayed incorrectly. The title of point 3.2.2 should be on the next page. The title of Fig. 10 appears on the next page. The description of the vertical axis of Figure 17 is placed too close to this axis. The article contains calculations made using the finite element method. However, the authors did not include details such as the software used, the type of finite element, etc. In my opinion, the article should be supplemented with more details related to finite element calculations.

Author Response

We also appreciate your critical remarks, which help us improve the quality of our manuscript. We address the editorial corrections you mentioned, including fixing citation numbers, ensuring proper placement of section titles and figure captions.

Regarding your concern about the lack of details related to finite element calculations, we understand the importance of providing transparency in methodology. We make sure to include relevant information such as the software used, the type of finite element method employed, and any other pertinent details in our manuscript to enhance its comprehensiveness.  All the changes were highlighted (in red) in the revision.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We incorporate these revisions to improve the overall quality of our article and ensure that it meets the standards of the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important area and needs significant research. having read several times, I still could not conclude this is a summary report of current state and techniques for the specific problem or a research paper on a specific problem. It seems towards more the former. 

If that is the case, then the paper needs the motivation, purpose, and aimed outcomes.

Unfortunately, a few references were not shown in the pdf script (such as "Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference 73 source not found.")

 

However, the paper in its current version, does not state clearly the SPECIFIC problem. 

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our paper. We appreciate your insights regarding the clarity of the paper's focus and structure. We understand your concern about the ambiguity regarding whether the paper serves as a summary report of the current state and techniques for a specific problem or as a research paper addressing a specific problem directly.

To address this concern, we revise the paper to clearly define the specific problem being addressed, as well as provide a clear motivation, purpose, and aimed outcomes.  We recognize the importance of clearly articulating the research objectives to ensure the coherence and relevance of our work.

The one-time closing construction technology of edge span caster-in-situ section and closing section has the advantages of saving construction time and reducing construction costs.  For the continuous rigid frame bridge with high pier and long span, canceling the construction of the cast-in-place section of the side span can effectively reduce the construction difficulty and increase the construction safety, and has important engineering application value to realize the update of construction technology. This is also the purpose and significance of this article.

Additionally, we apologize for the oversight regarding the missing references in the PDF script. We replaced some references and re-regulated the citation format of Chinese references in articles. We ensure that all references are correctly cited and displayed in the final version of the manuscript. All the changes were highlighted (in red) in the revision.

Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, and we make the necessary revisions to enhance the clarity and focus of our paper. Your comments undoubtedly improve the quality and impact of our research.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.