Study on the Vibration Effects of Cyclic Blasting on Bridge Structures under Construction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The impact of dynamic loads on so-called "sensitive structures" is an important element when examining the safety of use of structures.

There are no studies that can clearly define safe blasting zones.

This is due to a very large number of variable parameters regarding the source of the blast, the environment that transmits the blast and the level of sensitivity of the structure itself.

Therefore, each manuscript containing the results of research on real objects has a high cognitive value.

This also applies to this manuscript.

 

Numerical simulation and analysis of blasting vibration was performed using relatively modern programs allowing for multi-parameter modeling of the task.

The author used previously checked relationships to determine, among others, the average detonation pressure of the explosive and initial average pressure resulting from the blast holes.

Peak Vibration Velocity Measurement at Pier and Bridge Deck Measuring Points allowed the authors to show a simulation of peak vibration velocity at measuring points.

The results from measurements at the facility allowed for:

- establishing the relationship between blasting vibration velocity and blasting frequency of bridge structures;

- optimization and analysis of blasting vibration scheme.

 

Remarks:

The presented conclusions concern one dynamically loaded object.

Using the presented method to determine the safety of another facility would require in-situ measurement of dynamic parameters.

This is not a critical remark, but a practical one, since there are no universal recommendations regarding the impact of dynamic loads on structures.

A valuable manuscript that expands knowledge of structure dynamics.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I appreciate the recognition of the importance of studying the impact of dynamic loads on sensitive structures and the acknowledgment of the cognitive value of our manuscript. I also appreciate your remarks regarding the practical necessity of in-situ measurements for other facilities and the need for universal recommendations.

We are grateful for your recognition of the manuscript's value in expanding knowledge in this field and will continue to refine our work based on your insights.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

Best regards,

YunHao Che and EnAn Chi

Guizhou University

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main observation is that there is hardly any scientific novelty in the study.

Some observations:

- Figure 2 does not look like a satellite image
- Figure 3 results almost unreadable on the pdf provided for revision
- The blast scheme is not described. It is referred to a "cut". Is it a parallel holes cut (no dummy holes appear visible) or a V-shaped cut? Zooming in in Figure 3 it is hard to figure out
- Paragraph 2 and figure 3: what explosive was employed? And what initiation system?
- Equation 1: is the isentropic coefficient of explosive exactly 3.0, or an approximate value around 3? As it is hardly the case of ideal explosives
- All figures result unreadable in the PDF provided for review
- Section 4: there is no optimization performed. The authors seem to use the expression "optimize" when meaning "meliorate"
- There is reference to a "scheme 2" in the manuscript but no blasting scheme other the the first (Figure 3) is provide in the figures
- I encourage the authors to integrate their literature review including further works within the last 5 years on the subject of blast impact on structures

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with the impact of cyclic tunnel blasting on adjacent bridge structures under construction.

1. The abstract and Conclusion start with the same sentence. 

2. The conclusion is missing the main statements from the authors, it only repeats the obtained results. 

3. Further research is missing.

4. Discussion section should be added.

5. The literature review is very poor, it should be more comprehensive as well as contributions in the Introduction.

6. What are the main contributions of the paper and what is the novelty regarding previous studies?

7. Methodology and Results are well-presented and elaborated.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a first review of manuscript: Study on vibration effects of Cyclic blasting on bridge structures.

There are only few visual issues that needs attention:

-          Figures 3 and 5 should be enlarged or just increase font to be visible

 

-          Figures 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are blurry

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main comment remains the same: I am at loss to see any scientific novelty in the study.

 

I am recommending publication only because I see no flaws in the document, but I would not recommend it as a scientific paper

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all issues and have improved the paper. 

No further comments.