Review of Accelerated Bridge Construction Systems for Bridge Superstructures and Their Adaptability for Cold Weather

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper attempts to investigate the available PBES in ABC for bridge superstructure. The review seems to be rather narrow and not covering all the available elements and methods. The paper has also promised to introduce elements, systems and connections that would perform best and can be standardized for ABC in cold climate.

Although authors hinted in the abstract to a review of the state-of-the-art and experiences in “countries around the world” and “northern climate countries,” the review in the main body of the paper is mostly limited to the US and Canada, and is in no way a complete review. This needs to be clarified and the promise and deliverable made consistent.

Furthermore, the authors have introduced general purpose PBES and few materials with the potential application in cold weather, and concluded that ABC can be adapted to cold weather. There is no cohesive, scientific or practical justification for this conclusion neither provided experimental nor analytical data for supporting such conclusions. For example, the authors have suggested few Sika products such as Anchoring Gel, adhesives and grouts with low temperature application without specifying where and how these materials would be used in conjunction with ABC, or any prior work with acceptable performance resulting from the use of such material. According to the promise of the paper, one would expect to learn from this paper the answer to “what type of elements and systems can and should be used for ABC in cold climate” and “how and using what material those elements or systems would be connected.” There should be a focus on joints and connections for PBES and to clearly demonstrate how these joints can be established with methods and materials for cold weather.

The reviewer recommends revising the paper according to the above general comments.

The following are some specific comments for the authors to consider in revising their manuscript;

-         The review of deck elements ad modular systems is missing some systems such as folded plate girder, press-brake-form tub girders, etc. (see Reference 1 and other relevant sources)

-         For more information on suitability of deck and girder elements and systems with respect to bridge span, please refer to Reference 1 and other relevant sources.

-         Please add barriers and miscellaneous elements to the prefabricated elements (see Reference 1 and other relevant sources).

-         Also, for experiences on ABC and cold climate in North America, please also refer to Alaska experiences (Reference 2)

 References:

1 -      https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2019/12/ProgressReport-FIU-2016-2-4-November2019.pdf  and

       https://abc-utc.fiu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2019/12/ProgressReport-FIU-2016-1-1-November-2019-1.pdf

2-  https://na.eventscloud.com/file_uploads/59f35b00e0e006334a6f78f69869a254_3A_Daugherty.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a review paper on accelerated bridge construction (ABC).  The authors provided a succinct summary of various structural elements/systems, joints and materials used in ABC of bridge superstructure.  They then offered some insights into the application of ABC in cold weather environment.  Given that ABC is used quite often nowadays, the paper is a timely addition to the literature.  The paper, however, can be improved if more figures are added.  Most of the discussions are descriptive in nature, and adding more figures will help readers gain a better understanding of what the authors are trying to convey.  In addition, the authors should consider elaborating more on the pros and cons of each method/material used in ABC.  This will give readers more insight into how to select the most appropriate systems for use under a given set of conditions.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript reviews the application of Accelerated Bridge Construction methods from different perspective. The review sounds interesting with a lot to learn (for readers) in a summarized study. 

The authors have reviewed every single component of the ABC and different methods. 

The review provides significant outcomes with a critical discussion by the authors. 

The only concern I have is the copyright issues (figures).

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not respond satisfactorily to the major review comments

Author Response

please see the attachment