Spatial Nonlinear Simulation Analysis on the Temperature Shrinkage Effect of a Super-Long Frame Structure Considering the Construction Process

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editors,

here are my questions, comments andrecommendations regarding the reviwed manuscript:

1) The Introduction section is rather brief and contains very few references, especially of the researches in recent years. 

2. Maybe the citation "...in Literature" should not be written from the capital letter, but the Editors can correct me if I`m not right. 

3. Captions in fig. 2 are barely seen.

4. The font in both tables is completely different from the one in the main text and is difficult to read. What does the coloumn "quantity" mean in table 2?

5. Actually, I see no differences between fig. 5 a and b. Is it correct or maybe the authors could comment or discuss it in details?

6. The calculations on page 6 (below) and 7 (above) are not evident: what does every notation of the symbol mean? 

7. Fig. 7: is it OK that there is no trend in the order of the curves with respect to the number of condition? Maybe the error bars could clarify such situation. 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

- The abstract is well written as it should consider having a general overview of your title, problem statement, a summary of the methodology, and your parameter and overall finding of your research conclude with your outcome. - The introduction has clearly explained the background research towards the research area but needs to correlate from paragraph to paragraph   The discussion and analysis of the result have been clearly explained but the authors' lack in the correlation between the result Check the overall format of your references, make sure all is complete and standardize

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Spatial nonlinear simulation analysis on temperature shrinkage effect of super-long frame structures considering the construction process

 

The paper about the “Spatial nonlinear simulation analysis on temperature shrinkage effect of super-long frame structures considering the construction process

” is reviewed. Author needs to provide the description of some critical parts of the study. The paper is very well organize and well presented, therefore please accept this present work, with following minor suggestions

 

1-      Abstract could be more informative by providing results. I prefer to see some results in the abstract.

2-      The introduction needs to be more emphasized on the research work with a detailed explanation of the whole process considering past, present and future scope. How the present study gives more accurate results than previous studies? It needs to be strengthened in terms of recent research in this area with possible research gaps. It is strongly recommended to add a recent literature.

3-      There are too many basic and well know equations, authors is not proposing any new equation please reduce the equation or put it in annexure. Please avoid the detail derivation, please add these in the annexure.

4-      Research gaps should be highlighted more clearly and future applications of this study should be added.

5-      Please avoid the basic details about the methodology in the introduction portion, the introduction portion, please use only the latest reference. Please reduce these sections.

6-      Please describe the important and novelty of the selected problem, data details and the geometric. Please provide details about the selected problem and the geometric. Please include the validation process on the unique problem.

7-      Author use different abbreviation at different places, which confused the reader, Please provide the list of the abbreviation, please use in the start.

8-      In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study, suggested improvements of this work, and future directions should be added

 

The author needs to address the abovementioned points for the betterment of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors and Editors,

I approve the changes in the manuscript according to reviewer`s recommendations and find the answers provided by the authors reasonable.

Thus, I think the manuscript is worth publishing. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made some revisions to the manuscript. I recommended this manuscript be accepted for publication