Bridge Management—Determination of Allowable Cartage Loads for the Movement of Heavy Vehicles with a Platform Trailer on Concrete Bridges to Satisfy MCFT-Based Section Shear Adequacy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a valuable approach to bridge management, though major revisions are recommended based on the following queries.
The choice of MCFT and the limitations of alternative methods are indeed discussed. However, to deepen clarity, the introduction could still explicitly highlight how MCFT better aligns with the recent standard requirements of AS 5100.5, particularly for accurately addressing shear strength.
Assumptions on Reinforcement and Load Distribution: Assumptions, including uniform reinforcement and use of the Lever Rule, are briefly acknowledged. Still, a focused subsection on how these affect broader bridge configurations would reinforce transparency and applicability.
Highlight Key Trends in Tables: There is a comprehensive presentation of SFtrailer and RF values, but it would improve the analysis if notable trends or outliers—such as configurations leading to unusually high or low adequacy factors—were highlighted and explained. This would add interpretative value to the data.
Comparative Analysis Across Bridge Configurations: The results could be enriched with a brief comparison of SFtrailer and RF values across alternative bridge types or load scenarios, even if this is suggested as future work. Discussing how the current findings might generalize or vary across different scenarios would enhance robustness.
Justification for the Two-Span Model: Although a two-span bridge is used, further detail on why this specific configuration was chosen and its relevance to other bridge types or common applications would provide context on the generalizability of the findings.
Illustrative Case Studies for RF Discrepancies: Specific examples of configurations where RF deviates from expected values would make the findings more practical and clear for readers.
Moment-to-Shear Ratios Analysis: Table 1 displays variability in moment-to-shear (M*/V*) ratios. Examining these variations, particularly in relation to load placement and axle distribution, could clarify shear adequacy across different load configurations.
Validation Steps Beyond Current Methods: Additional validation efforts could be discussed, such as a comparison of SFtrailer values with other real-world data, which would strengthen the reliability of the results beyond theoretical analysis.
Alternative Load Management Techniques: Briefly mentioning potential alternative techniques, such as dynamic monitoring or automated load redistribution, could frame the platform table method within a broader spectrum of bridge management tools.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have undertaken a considerable amount of work; however, the manuscript lacks coherence in structural organization and originality in its research contributions. The topics discussed do not appear innovative to the readers, particularly within the scholarly community. Furthermore, the quantity and quality of the figures and tables are insufficient. The manuscript does not highlight any significant foundational contributions. In light of this, I personally believe it does not provide sufficient useful insights for engineers and scholars in both practical applications and academic study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is not the critical issue for this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Abstract：
- Clarify the importance of adjusting "trailer axle count" in bridge load assessment.
- Briefly explain the nonlinear search technique and its role in evaluating the relationship between "trailer axle variations" and "shear adequacy."
- Define technical terms like "MCFT" to improve accessibility for broader audiences.
2. Introduction：
- Provide more details on the Nonlinear Goal-Seek Procedure and its contribution to accuracy.
- Expand on the comparison between the semi-automation method (Smith and Parvin) and the proposed approach.
- Clarify the creation and use of the platform table in speeding up permit assessments.
3. Platform Table Creation：
- Explain how MF may misrepresent load distribution for the entire vehicle, differentiating it from SFtrailer.
- Specify whether Python programs use finite element analysis (FEA) or other methods for scaling factors.
- Provide a clearer explanation of the Lever Rule Method for readers unfamiliar with it.
4. Conclusion：
- Enhance the discussion of software adoption by providing examples of software that would benefit from the new method.
- Justify the use of SFtrailer over MF by comparing their accuracy and highlighting SFtrailer’s advantages.
- Clarify how often the platform table requires updates and what scenarios prompt these changes.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper describes an approach employing a nonlinear search technique to determine the maximum allowable cartage loads of nominated vehicles by varying the number of trailer axles, to ensure shear adequacy. A vehicle‐bridge system has been analyzed considering a two‐span bridge girder subject to a nominated rating vehicle. The calculated scaling factors for trailer loads corresponding to the total number of axles in the vehicle are presented. The article deals with an important and topical issue. The authors demonstrate mastery of the topic. In reviewer’s opinion, this paper can be accepted after a minor revision process, concerning the following problems:
#1 Figure 2: For better understanding by the reader, the drawing should be placed as close as possible to the given reference in the text;
#2 Figure 3: It is not very readable, please draw larger sizes of forces and descriptions;
#3 Conclusions: It is clearer for me to summarise the conclusions in bullet points.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Author Response
Please see the response to reviewers' comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been addressed by the authors. However, minor revisioni is needed, as the reference number is too small to meet the requirement of this esteemed journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFurther polishing is needed for improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the response to the comments in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
