Central Load-Bearing Control in the Construction Process of the Concrete Spherical Joint Nandu River Swing Bridge: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper introduces the calculation method to determine the parameters required for rotational traction force and performs the spherical joint stability analysis when constructing a deck arch bridge with the balanced-weight plane rotation method. The following recommendations are provided for this article.

1. The use of 'bulk' in line 44 does not seem to match the meaning expressed in the whole sentence.
2. In line 53, 'so far' and 'before' appear in a sentence, resulting in poor reading.
3. The text utilizes 'thus' as a conjunction in several places, which is not formal enough in a scientific paper.
4. In row 56, there is a grammatical error. It is suggested to change 'is not been' to 'has not been'.
5. In subsection 2.2, Utilizing the term 'uniform' to characterize the bending moment distribution of the main arch ring, which appears to be somewhat inaccurate.
6. Almost all of the diagrams in the article exist with poor quality and need to be carefully optimized. For example, the font height of the value '5.4' in Figure 11 suddenly becomes larger and thicker, and the shape and size of the arrows in Figure 13 are quite different from other images.
7. In Table 1, the letters' a-k 'are used to represent different construction stages of the cable respectively. It is recommended to briefly introduce them to avoid appearing suddenly.
8. In row 231 and Table 2, it is necessary to change 'KN' to 'kN' as the wrong unit format for force.
9. It is strongly recommended to adjust font height of all Tables and Formula 3.
10. In line 218, the author utilizes "Four 4000 kN lifting jacks" to indicate four jacks with an allowable value of 4000 kN. The description of the jacks herein needs to be clearer.
11. In row 298, 'which is relatives to the safety' contains a syntax error.
12. In introduction, substantial space is spent on presenting the merits of swivel construction method, but the existing defects of the method and the status of related research are not given, resulting in the absence of bases to support the necessity of research.
13. The construction method presented in this paper has been promoted in practical projects. The author needs to put forward clear innovation points and conduct in-depth research according to the relevant problems existing in the construction field.

Author Response

This paper introduces the calculation method to determine the parameters required for rotational traction force and performs the spherical joint stability analysis when constructing a deck arch bridge with the balanced-weight plane rotation method. The following recommendations are provided for this article.

Reply: The authors thank this reviewer for the positive comments. All the comments are carefully studied and adopted in the revised manuscript. Further, a detailed response is prepared and shown below.

 

The use of 'bulk' in line 44 does not seem to match the meaning expressed in the whole sentence.

Reply: The authors thank this reviewer for this comment. The “bulk” has been changed to “collapse”. (Line 46).

 

In line 53, 'so far' and 'before' appear in a sentence, resulting in poor reading.

Reply: The authors thank for the comment. “So far” and “before” were deleted. The sentences have been revised to “However, the monitoring process of the swing bridge construction has not been presented in the previous studies.” (Line 64-66).

 

The text utilizes 'thus' as a conjunction in several places, which is not formal enough in a scientific paper.

Reply: Thanks for reviewer’s comments. All the “thus” has been replaced by “therefore” or “so” as a conjunction to make it proper in a scientific paper.

 

In row 56, there is a grammatical error. It is suggested to change 'is not been' to 'has not been'.

Reply: Thanks for reviewer’s careful observation. The sentence has been revised as “Furthermore, significant procedure testing and determining the gravity center of the rotating system has not been reported”. (Line 65-67).

 

In subsection 2.2, Utilizing the term 'uniform' to characterize the bending moment distribution of the main arch ring, which appears to be somewhat inaccurate.

Reply: The authors thank for the comment. The bending moment here should be uniformly distributed along the main arch, which has been revised in the manuscript. (Line 108-109).

 

Almost all of the diagrams in the article exist with poor quality and need to be carefully optimized. For example, the font height of the value '5.4' in Figure 11 suddenly becomes larger and thicker, and the shape and size of the arrows in Figure 13 are quite different from other images.

Reply: The authors thank for the reviewer’s careful observation. The font size of “5.4” has been revised in Figure 12. Also, Figure13 and Figure 14 have been adjusted as well in the manuscript.

 

In Table 1, the letters' a-k 'are used to represent different construction stages of the cable respectively. It is recommended to briefly introduce them to avoid appearing suddenly.

Reply: We thank for the reviewer’s useful comment on this issue. The detailed description about the stages of cable tension has been added in section 3.1. The detailed description is as follows: “The stages of cable tension are from a to k, which is shown in Table 1. At stage a, the pulling cables were anchored. Then the buckle cables were anchored at stage b. After stage a and b, the tension of pulling cables was increased at stage c. Subsequently, the tension of the buckle cable was increased at stage d. To prevent the cracking of concrete back wall caused by too large tension of cables, the tension of pulling cables and buckle cables were increased alternately in the following stages of cable tension until stage k.”. (Line 149-154).

 

In row 231 and Table 2, it is necessary to change 'KN' to 'kN' as the wrong unit format for force.

Reply: We thank for the careful comment from this reviewer. All the “KN” has been revised to “kN”, including in lines 265-266, Table 2 and Figure 13.

 

It is strongly recommended to adjust the font height of all Tables and Formula 3.

Reply: Thanks for the careful comment from this reviewer. All the font size in tables and formula 3 has been revised to 10 in the manuscript to keep the consistency.

 

In line 218, the author utilizes "Four 4000 kN lifting jacks" to indicate four jacks with an allowable value of 4000 kN. The description of the jacks herein needs to be clearer.

Reply: We thank for the comment from this reviewer. To make it clearer, the description has been revised to “Four lifting jacks were placed on both sides of the bridge rotating system to test the critical load during the gravity center test. The maximum load of each lifting jack is 4000 kN.”. (Line 250-252).

 

In row 298, 'which is relatives to the safety' contains a syntax error.

Reply: Thanks for the careful checking from this reviewer. The description has been revised to “The monitoring process of rotating construction is the critical stage, which is related to the safety of the bridge construction.”. (Line 340-341).

 

In introduction, substantial space is spent on presenting the merits of swivel construction method, but the existing defects of the method and the status of related research are not given, resulting in the absence of bases to support the necessity of research.

Reply: We thank the constructive comments from this reviewer. The issues of the swivel construction are reviewed. The relating references are added as well. The detailed revision has been presented on Line 49-62.

 

The construction method presented in this paper has been promoted in practical projects. The author needs to put forward clear innovation points and conduct in-depth research according to the relevant problems existing in the construction field.

Reply: We thank the constructive comments from this reviewer. The key problems during the swivel construction have been added. Also, the current issues have been summarized. The detailed revision has been presented on Line 64-70.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Central load-bearing control in the construction process of the concrete spherical joint swing bridge” presents an analytical and experimental study related to the construction of the concrete spherical joint of the Nandu River swing bridge. The technical content, organization and writing of this manuscript is fairly good. I think the manuscript is sufficient for publication with “Buildings” as a full length paper.

Author Response

The manuscript “Central load-bearing control in the construction process of the concrete spherical joint swing bridge” presents an analytical and experimental study related to the construction of the concrete spherical joint of the Nandu River swing bridge. The technical content, organization and writing of this manuscript is fairly good. I think the manuscript is sufficient for publication with “Buildings” as a full length paper.

Reply: The authors thank this reviewer for the very positive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

• Please add "A Case Study" in the title. As this paper used The Nandu River swing bridge for the research.
• Abstract need to revise

1. Check the english..Line 16 "... . And.."
2. Results is not presented in this section.
3. Conclusion also not be presented. 

• Add more literature review in Section 1. 
• Add research gap and compare with previous study and objectives in Section 1.
• Line 76 "construction. 0 shows .." what is 0?
• Ref error in Line 81
• Ref error in Line 98
• Structural properties of the bridge should be included in the Section 2
• Any ref to support section 2.3, construction process?
• Any graphical illustrated to represent the Eq 1? For an example "? is the distance of contact border to contact circle center"
• Please double check Eq 1 - Eq 8 and support with some literature
• Line 218 " is shown in 0"?
• Line 226 "were shown in 0."
• Line 229 "As could be seen from 0(a)"
• Line 232 " relative parameters (shown in 0)"
• Change all unit from KN to kN
• Line 243 " is shown in 0 below: "

Author Response

Comments to the Author

Reply: The authors thank this reviewer for the very positive comments. We have carefully revised our work following these comments. Moreover, a detailed response is prepared and shown below.

 

1. Please add "A Case Study" in the title. As this paper used The Nandu River swing bridge for the research.

Abstract need to revise

1. Check the english Line 16 "... . And.."
2. Results is not presented in this section.
3. Conclusion also not be presented.

Reply: We thank the constructive comments from this reviewer. The title has been revised to “Central Load-bearing Control in the Construction Process of the Concrete Spherical Joint Nandu River Swing Bridge: A Case Study”.

1. The English grammar has been revised at Line 14-15. The sentence has been revised to “Furthermore, the overturning moment is computed to monitor the stability of the rotating system based on the stress distribution calculation of spherical joint.”.

2 & 3. The result and conclusion have been summarized in the abstract section. The detailed description is at Line 18-25.

 

2. Add more literature review in Section 1.

Reply: Thanks for the comments from this reviewer. The literature review relating to swivel construction has been supplemented. The detailed description has been added at Line 49-62.

 

3. Add research gap and compare with previous study and objectives in Section 1.

Reply: We thank for the constructive comments from this reviewer. The gap has been presented as well. The detailed description has been added at Line 64-70.

 

4. Line 76 "construction. 0 shows .." what is 0?

Reply: Thanks for the careful observation from this reviewer. We are sorry for this error in the Word software. The “0” should be “Figure 2”. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 84. Furthermore, we have checked all the mark errors in the manuscript.

 

5. Ref error in Line 81

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “Ref” should be “Figure”. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 96.

 

6. Ref error in Line 98

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “Ref” should be “Figure” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 111.

 

7. Structural properties of the bridge should be included in the Section 2

Reply: Thanks for the constructive comments from this reviewer. The description of structural properties has been added in the manuscript at Line 85-90. And the structural parameters of the back wall (Table 2) and spherical joint (Figure 16 b) have been added as well.

 

8. Any ref to support section 2.3, construction process?

Reply: Thanks for the constructive comments from this reviewer. A new reference in terms of the construction process has been added. Simultaneously, the construction process of Nandu river swing bridge is unique. Therefore, the detailed information of this bridge is presented to emphasize the overview of the construction process. (Line 94-95).

 

9. Any graphical illustrated to represent the Eq 1? For an example "? is the distance of contact border to contact circle center"

Reply: Thanks for the constructive comment from this reviewer. The diagram about the conformal contact joint with clearance has been added as Figure 4.

 

10. Please double check Eq 1 - Eq 8 and support with some literature

Reply: Thanks for the comment from this reviewer. A new reference about the Non-Hertz contact theory has been added at Line 135.

 

11. Line 218 " is shown in 0"?

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “0” should be “Figure 12” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 250.

 

12. Line 226 "were shown in 0."

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “0” should be “Figure 13” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 260.

 

13. Line 229 "As could be seen from 0(a)"

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “0” should be “Figure 13” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 264.

 

14. Line 232 " relative parameters (shown in 0)"

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “0” should be “Table 2” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 267.

 

15. Change all unit from KN to kN

Reply: We thank for the careful comment from this reviewer. All the “KN” has been revised to “kN”, including Table 2 and Figure 13.

 

16. Line 243 " is shown in 0 below: "

Reply: We are sorry for this error from the Word software. The “0” should be “Figure 14” as well. It has been revised in the manuscript at Line 279.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The revised version does not seriously modify the format of charts, such as the arrow format in figures 14 to 16.

2. In lines 35 and 364, the message is not clear. It is suggested that the full text be written in authentic and concise sentences.

3. This paper only introduces a mature swivel construction method rather than presents innovation or existing problems in the construction field.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reply: We really appreciate the efforts and constructive comments from this reviewer. As you commented, we have revised our manuscript according to your comments and suggestions.

 

1. The revised version does not seriously modify the format of charts, such as the arrow format in figures 14 to 16.

Reply: We thank for the careful observation from this reviewer. The arrow format in Figures 14 to 16 has been revised.

 

2. In lines 35 and 36, the message is not clear. It is suggested that the full text be written in authentic and concise sentences.

Reply: We are sorry for the confusing expression. The sentence in Line 35- 36 has been revised as “Then, the rotating system is separated from the temporary supports and rotated to the bridge axis to butt at the proper time [4].”.

 

3. This paper only introduces a mature swivel construction method rather than presents innovation or existing problems in the construction field.

Reply: Thanks for the comments from this reviewer. In this case study, the key problems are discussed in terms of the central load-bearing control. The entire construction process as well as how to control the gravity at each construction stage are presented. Eventually, the recommendation is proposed for the key problems. It is important to give an example for the following swing bridge construction by means of rotating construction.

Following the reviewers’ valuable comments and advice, we have made the revision to our manuscript. We hope the quality of the revised manuscript could meet the publication requirements of Buildings.