Random Field-Based Time-Dependent Reliability Analyses of a PSC Box-Girder Bridge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting paper very well organized. It brings a new view on the solved problem. I have a small formal reminder.  The symbol d in the differentials should be written as vertical letter (equations (1), (3), (12)).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

    Please see the attachment,which contains the detailed responses to the

reviewer’s comments.

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Zheheng Chen

College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University

Nanjing, P. R. China, 210098

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

The bibliography is not adequate. Especially the references given in the introduction are not the most relevant ones. 

Consider giving some information about computation time, especially compared to the other, existing methods. 

The experimental data you use has been extracted from the literature: this is not a problem, but you have to be clear about that.

In the last example, which models for creep, shrinkage, ... and all other material properties do you use? I presume that you used models from the codes. Please explain why looking at uncertainties -as you do- is important if you use simplified models. Wouldn't a safety be better?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment, which contains the detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments.

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Zheheng Chen

College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University

Nanjing, P. R. China, 210098

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The first question is about novelty. Please add consistent information about the novelty of the research (in the Introduction as well as in conclusion). In the manuscript (in Introduction) only the literature review, as well as the information about the content of the paper, are provided. However, the novelty of the research was not highlighted and explained sufficiently. The second issue that is not explained sufficiently is the ‘Finite Element Model’. It is good to provide information about the number and types of finite elements that were used.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment, which contains the detailed responses to the reviewer’s comments.

Thank you for your kind attention in this matter.

Zheheng Chen

College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University

Nanjing, P. R. China, 210098

E-mail: [email protected]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments have been answered.