Symmetry in Stress Distribution: Elastic–Plastic Behavior of Rib Plates and Rib-to-Deck Weld Root Performance in Steel Orthotropic Bridge Decks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file of comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank Reviewer 1 for the thoughtful and constructive comments. The detailed feedback helped us to improve the precision of our explanations, and strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insights, which contributed meaningfully to the refinement of our work. All answers are given in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigated the mechanical and fatigue behaviour of orthotropic steel bridge decks, focusing on the performance of the rib-to-deck weld root. Two specimens were tested and a finite element simulation was conducted. Some suggestions are provide for consideration.

1. The “elastic-plastic”  in the title is misleading, since the analysis and discussion remain primarily within the elastic range.
2. What is the material model for the steel plate and weld? Why there is only one parameter, yield stress? The weld yield stress of 410 MPa appears to be a nominal value rather than a tested one. Tested yield stress of the weld should be used.
3. Residual stresses and heat-affected zone effects are known to significantly influence fatigue performance of welded joints but are not considered in this study. Their omission should be justified, and their potential influence discussed in the limitations.
4. Boundary conditions were not mentioned in the FE models.
5. Although microscopy techniques were not employed, methods such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or optical microscopy could provide valuable insights into weld zone quality and crack initiation mechanisms. For instance, the study “Inhomogeneity in mechanical properties of ductile iron pipes: A comprehensive analysis” demonstrated how such approaches reveal inhomogeneity-related failures. Including a brief discussion or citation of the similar studies would enrich the background and support the relevance of future microstructural investigations.
6. In the test, the applied loading in the experiment compresses the rib plate directly. But in a real bridge, there is no such loading condition. In fact, the ribbed deck was subjected to bending along the rib direction. The rationale for the loading type and boundary conditions should be justified with respect to real bridge service conditions.
7. The reported 𝑅2=1.0 for all models is unrealistic and maybe indicate overfitting.
8. The study correctly identifies h’/tr as a critical parameter but does not provide a clear physical interpretation of the observed relationships.

Author Response

The authors sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. The detailed comments have significantly contributed to improving the clarity and precision of our explanations, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. We greatly value the reviewer’s insights, which played a meaningful role in refining our work. All clarifications have been highlighted in red in the revised version of the manuscript. The detailed answers are given in the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My recommendations are:

1. It would be better for readers if you could provide key quantitative results in the abstract from your research.
2. Several statements/sentences should be cited properly in the introduction section.
3. Figures with (a) and (b) need proper general captions.
4. Does fu mean "break stress"? Or ultimate tensile strength?
5. Correct Figure 14; start from 8 to represent this more professionally
6. The captions for Figure 15 and 16 should need (a), (b), (c),…
7. Most figures have low resolution. They all should be improved.
8. Was the 8 mm mesh the optimal choice? How do you know it? Did you perform a sensitivity analysis?
9. What are your boundary conditions for the FE model? Do you think you have provided sufficient information for readers to reconstruct the numerical model and perform the analysis?
10. I think you have to provide a “conclusions” section in your manuscript.
11. Write a conclusion; summarize your research first. Later, provide your key findings quantitatively. Do not use references… Conclusions should be your own words without using any references.
12. What are the limitations of your research? How would you address it, and what would you offer next for future research?

Author Response

The authors sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the thoughtful and constructive comments. The detailed feedback helped us improve the clarity and precision of our explanations, and significantly strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s insights, which contributed meaningfully to the refinement of our work. All corrections and additions made in response to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript for clarity. The detailed answers are given in the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made some revision.

Author Response

 

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for their constructive comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to improving the quality of the work.

Comment 1 : Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? 
Answer 1: The introduction has been revised in accordance with the editor’s recommendations. The most recent references on the topic have also been reviewed and cited.

Comments 2: Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?
Answer 2: 

Regarding the screenshots, they were enhanced using techniques available in Word, such as adjustments to brightness, contrast, and color saturation. As for the photos taken in the laboratory, they are the only ones available to us. Finally, concerning the figures prepared using Python's Matplotlib, they were generated at a resolution of 300 dpi, but the template prevents us from inserting them at their original quality. We are ready to provide the original files at the production stage of the final version if the paper is accepted.

Comment 3: The authors made some revision.
Answer 3: Reviewer 2 had 10 comments on version R0, all of which were addressed thoroughly and carefully in version R1.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your efforts in revising the manuscript. The revised version can now be considered for publication; however, you should avoid using the following expression:

"......, and this limitation will be acknowledged in the revised manuscript"

If you mean this will be discovered for future research you should revise this sentence in that manner such as:

"......, and this limitation will be acknowledged in future research."

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: 

you should avoid using the following expression:

"......, and this limitation will be acknowledged in the revised manuscript"

Answer 1: The sentence was corrected