Research on the Digital Twin System for Rotation Construction Monitoring of Cable-Stayed Bridge Based on MBSE
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The Manuscript buildings-3525905 with the title “ Research on the Digital Twin System for Rotation Construction Monitoring of Cable-Stayed Bridge Based on MBSE” is in acceptable quality research material in highlighting, the hypothesis, and methodological statement. The selected problem of the topic “ Digital Twin System” is interesting. Several comments regarding the improvement of the manuscript are as follows:
The literature review and analysis regarding addressing this issue of the Digital Twin System can be more analysed. One additional research part can be presented in the manuscript.
Figure 2. Elevation layout (unit: cm) (page 3) not readable; Figure 3. V-model architecture of the rotation construction digital twin system (page 4); Figure 4. Top-level requirement classification for the digital twin system of rotation construction monitoring and Figure 5. System functional requirements table (page 5); Figure 6. Functional requirement diagram of the rotation construction monitoring system (page 6).
In the manuscript presented some models are presented. The discussion about the real cases will be good.
The manuscript presents a literature analysis of the selected topic problem with a new literature source (2024–2025 year). The literature review part and reference list can be improved.
Reviewer
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
|||||
|
Comments 1: The literature review and analysis regarding addressing this issue of the Digital Twin System can be more analysed. One additional research part can be presented in the manuscript. |
|||||
|
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback on deepening the literature analysis of Digital Twin (DT) systems. To address this, we have significantly expanded the discussion in the Introduction and Literature Review sections (Page 1, Paragraph 2, Lines 22–31; Page 2, Paragraph 1, Lines 1–2). |
|||||
|
Comments 2: Figure 2. Elevation layout (unit: cm) (page 3) not readable; Figure 3. V-model architecture of the rotation construction digital twin system (page 4); Figure 4. Top-level requirement classification for the digital twin system of rotation construction monitoring and Figure 5. System functional requirements table (page 5); Figure 6. Functional requirement diagram of the rotation construction monitoring system (page 6). |
|||||
|
Response 2: We sincerely apologize for the suboptimal readability of the figures in the original submission and thank the reviewer for their diligence in highlighting this issue. We have comprehensively revised all figures to ensure clarity, accessibility, and visual coherence.
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour paper presents a valuable contribution to the field of bridge construction monitoring using MBSE and digital twin technologies. It demonstrates a strong application of these methods, particularly in the context of rotation construction for cable-stayed bridges. The paper is thorough and technically sound, providing in-depth analysis of system requirements, functions, and architecture.
However, there are areas where improvements could enhance the clarity and accessibility of your work. Simplifying some of the technical language, particularly in the abstract and introduction, would help engage a broader audience, including those not specialized in systems engineering or bridge construction. Additionally, providing clearer explanations of figures and tables, along with making sure the paper's sections flow logically from one to the next, will improve readability.
The methodology is solid, but a bit more context on how MBSE and SysML were specifically applied to this case study (beyond their general definitions) could help readers better understand their value in this context. Strengthening the conclusion to include more concrete results, and perhaps some recommendations for future research, would also add value.
I've reviewed the document, and here are some comments and suggestions for improving the paper:
1. Abstract:
- The abstract is quite dense and can be made clearer by breaking down the technical terms for a broader audience. Consider simplifying the description of the MBSE and digital twin concepts, especially for readers who may not be familiar with these methodologies.
- While the abstract mentions improved design efficiency and technical support, it does not elaborate on how these improvements compare to conventional methods.
2. Introduction Section:
- The introduction could benefit from more context about why the study is important. Why is the application of MBSE in bridge construction, specifically for cable-stayed bridges, significant? A brief overview of the challenges or existing gaps in current bridge monitoring systems could strengthen this section.
3. MBSE and SysML Overview:
- This section has a lot of detailed technical information that might overwhelm the reader. Try summarizing the main points, and leave the detailed methodology for the later sections. Additionally, it might be helpful to briefly mention why MBSE and SysML are chosen for this project over other potential modeling approaches.
- Explain how activity diagrams (Figure 8) address unique challenges of bridge rotation (e.g., synchronizing sensors during angular velocity changes).
4. Requirement Analysis and Functional Analysis:
- This section is quite technical, and the reader might struggle to understand the significance of the requirements without a stronger narrative around their implications. Consider expanding on how these requirements directly influence the design of the monitoring system.
- Visualization limitations. Include a table summarizing functional vs. non-functional requirements and annotate Figure 4 to clarify "TOC/TOB" terminology.
- Provide examples of conflicting stakeholder requirements (e.g., railway safety vs. construction speed) and how they were resolved in the model.
5. Conclusion:
- The conclusion could be more impactful by clearly summarizing the key findings of the research. You mention that MBSE improved design efficiency, but it would be useful to include some concrete examples or data points from the study to illustrate this point more clearly.
- Consider including suggestions for future research or practical applications of the digital twin system in bridge monitoring.
6. Figures and Visuals:
- There are several figures presented throughout the paper, but they are not always explained in detail in the text. For instance, the diagrams in the "V-model architecture" and "requirement diagram" sections should be accompanied by a more in-depth explanation of what the reader is looking at.
- Make sure all figures are referenced appropriately in the text. In some cases, it's unclear what the figure demonstrates or how it supports the argument.
- Standardize the figure layout: Ensure that all figures follow a consistent design style (e.g., same font size, consistent color scheme, and similar diagram layout). This will make the paper feel more cohesive.
- Legend for all graphs: If any figures include charts, ensure there's a clear legend or key explaining the symbols or lines. For example, in diagrams of flow or activity (Figures 7 and 8), use arrows and shapes consistently and provide a legend for clarity.
- Ensure all figures (e.g., Figures 2, 3, 12) are included in the final manuscript with detailed captions explaining their relevance to MBSE.
7. References
- Overreliance on Chinese-language sources. Replace some Chinese theses with international peer-reviewed articles on MBSE (e.g., INCOSE publications, IEEE/ASCE journals).
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
|||||||||
|
Comments 1: 1. Abstract: - The abstract is quite dense and can be made clearer by breaking down the technical terms for a broader audience. Consider simplifying the description of the MBSE and digital twin concepts, especially for readers who may not be familiar with these methodologies. - While the abstract mentions improved design efficiency and technical support, it does not elaborate on how these improvements compare to conventional methods. |
|||||||||
|
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback on improving the accessibility and clarity of the abstract. As suggested, we have added the description of MBSE and the concept of Digital Twin, and supplement the relevant research background (Page 1, paragraph 1, Lines 1-9). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion of improvements in design efficiency and technical support (Page 1, Paragraph 1, Lines 13–20) to explicitly compare the advantages of the MBSE framework with conventional methods. |
|||||||||
|
Comments 2: 2. Introduction Section: - The introduction could benefit from more context about why the study is important. Why is the application of MBSE in bridge construction, specifically for cable-stayed bridges, significant? A brief overview of the challenges or existing gaps in current bridge monitoring systems could strengthen this section. |
|||||||||
|
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion to contextualize the significance of our work. As recommended, we have revised the Introduction (Page 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 3–13) to explicitly outline the challenges and gaps in current bridge construction monitoring systems that motivate this study.
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on buildings-3525905-peer-review-v1 (6/10):
This paper presents a digital twin system for monitoring the construction of a 90m+90m single-tower cable-stayed bridge, utilizing a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach for system architecture design. A V-model architecture based on Requirements-Functional-Logical-Physical (RFLP) analysis was developed. SysML was used to model the system’s requirements, functions, and behaviors. The findings indicate that MBSE enhances design efficiency and supports model validation and engineering applications in complex systems.
After carefully reviewing this article, there exist significant issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication. Once these issues are addressed in detail, I can rereview the revised and if all the given responses are satisfactory, then I can recommend it for publication:
- It is crucial to understand the significance of the present investigation's novel aspects. In your paper, please explain how your study stands out from previous research works in this field. By highlighting the unique contributions of your investigations, it is hoped that you can demonstrate the value of your findings and the importance of continued research in this area.
- Some Chinese texts in the figures (for example, Figure 2) should be appropriately translated to English for better readability of the depicted graphs. In addition, the given texts in some of the presented figures are so small that cannot be read and seen well, indicating that they should be suitably improved or the way of presenting them should be altered.
- Concerning the integration of physical and digital systems, the authors should clarify how the integration of physical and digital components in the digital twin system enhances the monitoring of cable-stayed bridge rotation construction. Further, the potential challenges in ensuring seamless data transmission and interaction between these two components should be stated more apparently.
- The paper states that Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is commonly used in aerospace, aviation, and defense sectors, but it is less prevalent in bridge engineering. In this regard, the contributors should clarify what specific challenges bridge construction faces that might account for this difference. Additionally, how can MBSE be further tailored to bridge engineering to overcome these challenges? More clarifications from the authors on this are highly welcomed.
- In the present paper, the V-model architecture is proposed for the digital twin system. More clarifications from the authors are needed to display how this model enhances the design efficiency and forwards the design process compared to traditional linear models. In addition, the potential drawbacks of using the V-model in this context should be explained in some detail.
- Here, SysML is used to model the system's requirements, functions, and behaviors. It is anticipated that the authors display how SysML's graphical modeling capability improves communication between stakeholders compared to traditional textual documentation. Are there any limitations to using SysML in complex systems like bridge construction monitoring?
- The paper emphasizes the importance of traceability in system design, ensuring that each requirement is satisfied by the corresponding module. How does traceability improve system reliability and adaptability to changes? What tools or methods can be used to maintain traceability as the system evolves? Further clarifications from the authors on this will be very beneficial to both reviewers and readers.
- The system includes error analysis and early warning mechanisms. How do these features contribute to the safety and quality of the bridge rotation process? What are the potential consequences of false positives or false negatives in the early warning system? Please also elucidate these in the main body of the paper as well.
- Regarding future applications of MBSE in civil engineering, the paper suggests that MBSE can be applied not only in bridge construction but also in bridge health monitoring. What other areas of civil engineering could benefit from MBSE? How might MBSE evolve to address the unique needs of these areas?
- The digital twin system is designed for a specific cable-stayed bridge. How scalable is this system for other types of bridges or infrastructure projects? What modifications would be necessary to adapt the system to different construction scenarios? How can the authors handle this important issue? Please support your explanations via rational pieces of evidence, as well as other experimental and theoretical works.
- The crucial role of using appropriate sensors for possible monitoring of the structural mechanical state of the real bridge system within the V-model architecture of the rotation construction digital twin system has been not appropriately acknowledged. This important issue should be highlighted in the paper based on the following reference works:
- Chen, S., Ma, Y., Su, H., Fan, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Few-mode fiber-based long-period fiber gratings: A Review. Journal of Optics and Photonics Research, 1(1), 02–15.
- Cappello C, Zonta D, Ait Laasri H, Glisic B, Wang M. (2018). Calibration of elasto-magnetic sensors on in-service cable-stayed bridges for stress monitoring. Sensors. 18(2):466.
- Khan, R. Y. M., Ullah, R., & Faisal, M. (2024). High-Temperature Sensing with Iron-Ceramic Enhanced Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors: Encapsulation Strategies and Concentration Dependencies.
- Li, X., Hu, Y., Jie, Y., Zhao, C., & Zhang, Z. . (2023). Dual-Frequency Lidar for Compressed Sensing 3D Imaging Based on All-Phase Fast Fourier Transform. 1(2), 74–81.
All the above works, with regard to the importance of appropriate sensing, should be suitably explained briefly in 3-4 lines in an appropriate place in the paper.
- Some grammatical and linguistic errors:
- Abstract: The present version of the “Abstract” has been constructed in the context of the past tense, which is not common, meaning that its sentences should be constructed based on the present tense.
- Page 10: “the temperature, humidity and wind speed measurement system” --> “the temperature, humidity, and wind speed measurement system” (missing a comma symbol just before the “AND” used for connecting the last two elements);
- Page 10: “ensuring traceability [14] .” --> “ensuring traceability [14].” (deleting extra free spacing just after “[14]”);
- Page 11: “that MBSE approach” --> “that the MBSE approach” (missing article “the”);
- Page 11: “V- model architecture” --> “V-model architecture” (deleting a free spacing between “-“ and “model”);
- Page 11: “incorporated intoMBSE” --> “incorporated into the MBSE” (missing article “the”);
- Page 11: “and function is traceable” --> “and the function is traceable” (missing article “the”);
- Throughout the paper: Some long sentences should be paid attention to.
- Throughout the paper: Some ambiguous phrases should be revised.
- What are the future research directions and applications of the proposed method in the field of structural engineering? The authors are encouraged to explain the prospects and clarify the future works, illustrating more research gaps worthy of investigation as future works. These explanations can be provided in the last paragraph of the “Conclusions” section.
- It has been observed that the present references listed in the reference section do not strictly follow the prescribed format of the journal. This inconsistency in the formatting of the references suggests that there may be some errors or discrepancies in how they have been cited (i.e., the volume/issue number should be given in an italic form and so on). In addition, providing a DOI for each reference in the reference list can be helpful for better following the paper of that research work.
I kindly suggest that the contributors of this paper review and revise these areas thoroughly. If they can address all of the queries mentioned within the provided guidelines, I would be happy to recommend the paper for publication. This would help expedite the acceptance process for the authors. However, if the authors are unable to provide comprehensive answers and make the necessary revisions, the process of acceptance may take longer or it may be rejected. Therefore, I strongly encourage the authors to address all the above concerns and make the requested changes to the manuscript as commented above, and in return, I would be more than happy to reconsider my decision once these modifications have been fully made.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- Some grammatical and linguistic errors:
- Abstract: The present version of the “Abstract” has been constructed in the context of the past tense, which is not common, meaning that its sentences should be constructed based on the present tense.
- Page 10: “the temperature, humidity and wind speed measurement system” --> “the temperature, humidity, and wind speed measurement system” (missing a comma symbol just before the “AND” used for connecting the last two elements);
- Page 10: “ensuring traceability [14] .” --> “ensuring traceability [14].” (deleting extra free spacing just after “[14]”);
- Page 11: “that MBSE approach” --> “that the MBSE approach” (missing article “the”);
- Page 11: “V- model architecture” --> “V-model architecture” (deleting a free spacing between “-“ and “model”);
- Page 11: “incorporated intoMBSE” --> “incorporated into the MBSE” (missing article “the”);
- Page 11: “and function is traceable” --> “and the function is traceable” (missing article “the”);
- Throughout the paper: Some long sentences should be paid attention to.
- Throughout the paper: Some ambiguous phrases should be revised.
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
|||||||
|
Comments 1: It is crucial to understand the significance of the present investigation's novel aspects. In your paper, please explain how your study stands out from previous research works in this field. By highlighting the unique contributions of your investigations, it is hoped that you can demonstrate the value of your findings and the importance of continued research in this area. |
|||||||
|
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable feedback on deepening the literature analysis of Digital Twin (DT) systems. To address this, we have significantly expanded the discussion in the Introduction and Literature Review sections (Page 1, Paragraph 2, Lines 23–31; Page 2, Paragraph 1, Lines 1–3). Additionally, we have added the current challenges faced by bridge rotation construction monitoring to illustrate the importance of using MBSE method to design digital twin system. (Page 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 3–13; Page 2, Paragraph 4, Lines 37–49). |
|||||||
|
Comments 2: Some Chinese texts in the figures (for example, Figure 2) should be appropriately translated to English for better readability of the depicted graphs. In addition, the given texts in some of the presented figures are so small that cannot be read and seen well, indicating that they should be suitably improved or the way of presenting them should be altered. |
|||||||
|
Response 2: We sincerely apologize for the language and readability issues in the original figures and deeply appreciate the reviewer’s diligence in identifying these critical improvements. To address this, we have translated the Chinese version of Figure 2 (Page 4) into English, and adjusted the size of the text in each picture to ensure the readability of the picture.
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Comments 7: The paper emphasizes the importance of traceability in system design, ensuring that each requirement is satisfied by the corresponding module. How does traceability improve system reliability and adaptability to changes? What tools or methods can be used to maintain traceability as the system evolves? Further clarifications from the authors on this will be very beneficial to both reviewers and readers. |
|
||||||
|
Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful questions about the critical role of traceability in ensuring robust and adaptable system design. To address this, we have expanded Section 4.4 (Page 10, Paragraph 2, Lines 14–17) and Optimized Figure 11 (Page 12) to demonstrate the role of traceability in system design. |
|
||||||
|
Comments 8: The system includes error analysis and early warning mechanisms. How do these features contribute to the safety and quality of the bridge rotation process? What are the potential consequences of false positives or false negatives in the early warning system? Please also elucidate these in the main body of the paper as well. |
|
||||||
|
Response 8: We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the critical role of error analysis and early warning mechanisms in ensuring the safety and precision of the bridge rotation process. To address this, we have expanded Section 4.5 (Page 11, Paragraph 3, Lines 14–28; Page 12, Paragraph 1, Lines 1–11) to provide a detailed explanation of these systems: after receiving the input measured data, the system compares it with the theoretical data. If it exceeds the limit, it will send a signal to the early warning system, and the system will issue adjustment control measures to make the bridge brake or adjust the rotation speed. In addition, we have also added the consequences of missing reports from the early warning system and the corresponding solutions (Page 12, Paragraph 1, Lines 10–12). |
|
||||||
|
Comments 9: Regarding future applications of MBSE in civil engineering, the paper suggests that MBSE can be applied not only in bridge construction but also in bridge health monitoring. What other areas of civil engineering could benefit from MBSE? How might MBSE evolve to address the unique needs of these areas? |
|
||||||
|
Response 9: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s insightful question regarding the broader applicability of MBSE in civil engineering. As suggested, we have expanded in the Conclusion that MBSE can play its advantages in the fields of disaster emergency response and resource optimization. Combined with the actual engineering needs, we also looked forward to the application of MBSE in the fields of tunnel engineering and railway engineering (Page 14, Paragraph 6, Lines 36–47). |
|
||||||
|
Comments 10: The digital twin system is designed for a specific cable-stayed bridge. How scalable is this system for other types of bridges or infrastructure projects? What modifications would be necessary to adapt the system to different construction scenarios? How can the authors handle this important issue? Please support your explanations via rational pieces of evidence, as well as other experimental and theoretical works. |
|
||||||
|
Response 10: We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions on the application of digital twin system. According to the research content of this paper, we have improved the practicability of the research method in this paper for other infrastructure construction (Page 13, Paragraph 1, Lines 1–10). |
|
||||||
|
Comments 11: The crucial role of using appropriate sensors for possible monitoring of the structural mechanical state of the real bridge system within the V-model architecture of the rotation construction digital twin system has been not appropriately acknowledged. This important issue should be highlighted in the paper based on the following reference works: · Chen, S., Ma, Y., Su, H., Fan, X., & Liu, Y. (2024). Few-mode fiber-based long-period fiber gratings: A Review. Journal of Optics and Photonics Research, 1(1), 02–15. · Cappello C, Zonta D, Ait Laasri H, Glisic B, Wang M. (2018). Calibration of elasto-magnetic sensors on in-service cable-stayed bridges for stress monitoring. Sensors. 18(2):466. · Khan, R. Y. M., Ullah, R., & Faisal, M. (2024). High-Temperature Sensing with Iron-Ceramic Enhanced Fiber Bragg Grating Sensors: Encapsulation Strategies and Concentration Dependencies. · Li, X., Hu, Y., Jie, Y., Zhao, C., & Zhang, Z. . (2023). Dual-Frequency Lidar for Compressed Sensing 3D Imaging Based on All-Phase Fast Fourier Transform. 1(2), 74–81. All the above works, with regard to the importance of appropriate sensing, should be suitably explained briefly in 3-4 lines in an appropriate place in the paper. |
|
||||||
|
Response 11: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's suggestion on the type of sensor that should be used in the sensor system. Based on this suggestion, we have understood some emerging sensor types according to the literature provided, and added the type of sensor used in this study（Page 11, Paragraph 3, Lines 22–27）. |
|
||||||
|
Comments 12: Some grammatical and linguistic errors:
Response 12: We sincerely apologized for these grammatical and linguistic errors. We have changed the tenses of the abstract to the present tense, corrected all the grammatical errors mentioned, and reduced the use of long sentences（Page 1, Paragraph 1, Lines 1–20; Page 10, Paragraph 1, Lines 5 12; Page 14, Paragraph 2, Lines 8 13 24 25）. |
|
||||||
|
Comments 13: What are the future research directions and applications of the proposed method in the field of structural engineering? The authors are encouraged to explain the prospects and clarify the future works, illustrating more research gaps worthy of investigation as future works. These explanations can be provided in the last paragraph of the “Conclusions” section Response 13: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful suggestion to elaborate on the future potential of our methodology. As recommended, we have expanded the Conclusions section (Page 14, Paragraph 6, Lines 36–47) to outline specific research directions and applications. Comments 14: It has been observed that the present references listed in the reference section do not strictly follow the prescribed format of the journal. This inconsistency in the formatting of the references suggests that there may be some errors or discrepancies in how they have been cited (i.e., the volume/issue number should be given in an italic form and so on). In addition, providing a DOI for each reference in the reference list can be helpful for better following the paper of that research work. Response 14: We sincerely apologize for the formatting inconsistencies in the original reference list and thank the reviewer for their meticulous attention to detail. To address this, we have thoroughly revised the reference section to ensure strict compliance with the journal’s guidelines, including formatting corrections and Doi inclusion. |
|
||||||
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has significantly improved compared to the previous version, incorporating key revisions that enhance clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards.
1. Enhanced Readability and Accessibility
- The Abstract has been rewritten with clearer language, providing a more accessible explanation of MBSE and Digital Twin concepts for readers unfamiliar with these methodologies.
- The revised version also makes a more explicit comparison between MBSE and conventional methods, emphasizing the study's contributions.
2. Stronger Context and Research Motivation
- The Introduction now better highlights the significance of MBSE in cable-stayed bridge construction, clearly outlining the challenges and gaps in current bridge monitoring systems. This strengthens the study's relevance.
3. Optimization of Technical Content
- The MBSE and SysML section has been streamlined to focus on core principles while providing a concise justification for choosing MBSE over other modeling approaches.
- The activity diagram (Figure 9) has been revised to clearly illustrate how sensor synchronization is managed during bridge rotation.
4. Improved Requirement and Functional Analysis
- The addition of a functional vs. non-functional requirements table improves readability and organization.
- Technical terms (TOC, TOB) are now well explained, and examples of stakeholder conflicts (e.g., railway safety vs. construction speed) have been included along with their resolutions, enhancing the study’s practical applicability.
5. More Impactful Conclusion
- The Conclusion section has been expanded to provide concrete examples of MBSE’s efficiency in design.
-The discussion on Digital Twin’s future applications in bridge monitoring has been further developed, adding depth to the study’s implications.
6.Improved Visuals and Layout
- Figures have been revised to ensure consistency in design, readability, and proper referencing within the text.
- Captions have been detailed to help readers better understand the relevance of each figure.
7.Upgraded Reference List
- Several Chinese-language references have been replaced with internationally recognized peer-reviewed sources, significantly enhancing the study's academic credibility.
The revised manuscript successfully addresses the reviewers’ comments, significantly improving clarity, analytical depth, and visual quality. With these enhancements, the manuscript is now well-prepared for acceptance and publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough evaluation of our revised manuscript and your constructive feedback. We are grateful for your recognition of the manuscript's improvements and have carefully addressed the remaining points to ensure the highest quality.
We are deeply indebted to your generous intellectual engagement. Every critical observation has driven substantive improvements, as meticulously documented in the tracked-changes manuscript. Please advise if additional refinements would further serve the journal's standards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made significant progress in addressing the deficiencies pointed out by the reviewer in the first revised version of the article, resulting in the second version, and I consider a total grade of 7.5/10 for this version; nonetheless, it is imperative that the authors diligently address and complete the remaining crucial points to take the paper to the next level.
The major raised points at this round of the review are listed in the following:
- The authors need to exercise more caution with certain statements that use capitalized words, as this style is not consistently applied throughout the article and should only be used in specific instances. Therefore, the phrases “Requirements analysis, Functional analysis, Logical design, Physical design analysis” should be revised to “requirements analysis, functional analysis, logical design, physical design analysis.” in the abstract.
- Concerning the provided keywords, for the first keyword, only its abbreviation has been given. The full equivalent statement should also be included. Therefore, "MBSE" should be revised to "Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE)" or simply "Model-Based System Engineering." Additionally, it would be better to change "digital twin" to "Digital Twin," and the styles of other keywords should be improved accordingly.
- Each figure caption needs two dotted symbols: one just after “Figure xxx”, in which “xxx” stands for the figure’s number, and the other one at the end of the caption. On this basis, please check all figures’ captions and make the needed modifications. In addition, regarding the caption of Figure 4, the following revision should be done: “Figure 4 Stakeholders of the Rotation Construction Monitoring Digital Twin System” à “Figure 4. Stakeholders of the rotation construction monitoring digital twin system.”.
- The final item in Section 5 (e.g., "Conclusions") should be presented without any numbering, as it does not reflect a result from this research but rather outlines future work and potential directions. Therefore, its ID or number should be omitted. Additionally, in the first paragraph of this section, the phrase "The following conclusions have been drawn:" should be revised to "The main results obtained can be summarized as follows:", which is clearer and more meaningful in this context.
- The system includes non-functional requirements such as TOC (Total Ownership Cost) and TOB (Total Ownership Benefit). How do these non-functional requirements influence the design and implementation of the digital twin system? Are there trade-offs between functional and non-functional requirements in this context? More clarifications of the contributors on this issue will be helpful.
- The digital twin system is designed for a specific cable-stayed bridge. How scalable is this system for other types of bridges or infrastructure projects? In this regard, the contributors should clarify what modifications would be necessary to adapt the system to different construction scenarios.
- The initial data for digital twin systems can be collected from sensors located at various measuring points on the cable-stayed bridge. This data must also align with the numerical or analytical models created for bridges, whether for general studies or specific case analyses, under different load conditions. This connection should be emphasized in the paper, referencing the following novel relevant works:
- Yang et al. (2025). Nonlinear flutter in a wind-excited double-deck truss girder bridge: experimental investigation and modeling approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, 113(7), 6427-6445.
- Wang et al. (2024). A lightweight convolutional neural network for multipoint displacement measurements on bridge structures. Nonlinear Dynamics, 112(14), 11745-11763.
- Yang et al. (2023). Experimental and numerical investigation of an arch–beam joint for an arch bridge. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 23(2), 101.
- Zhang, C. (2023). The active rotary inertia driver system for flutter vibration control of bridges and various promising applications. Science China Technological Sciences, 66(2), 390-405.
The digital twin can leverage the insights gained from numerical and analytical models to provide predictive maintenance, improve design processes, and ultimately ensure the structural integrity and safety of cable-stayed bridges. This synergy between the two aspects facilitates a more systematic and efficient approach to bridge management and engineering. Therefore, this important issue should be explained in the paper based on the novel references introduced above, leading into the discussion on the model-based systems engineering (MBSE), which is the focus of contributors in this study.
- There are still some grammatical, linguistic, and format errors, and unclear statements; therefore, the contributors should review the paper carefully and do their best to remove such deficiencies throughout the paper. For example, the two main issues raised in Page 9 are as follows:
- Page 9: “increase sampling frequency, implement” à “increase sampling frequency and implement”;
- Page 9: “On-site camera equipment monitors both the overall rotation process of the bridge and the local rotation process of the turntable, while temperature and humidity, as well as wind speed measurement systems, collect temperature, humidity, and wind speed data.” à “The On-site camera equipment monitors both the overall rotation process of the bridge and the local rotation process of the turntable, whereas temperature and humidity, as well as wind speed measurement systems, collect temperature, humidity, and wind speed data, respectively.”
On this basis, the authors should re-review the whole manuscript of the paper and make the required modifications for more improvement of the work.
I kindly suggest that the contributors of this paper review and revise these areas thoroughly. If they can address all of the queries mentioned within the provided guidelines, I would be happy to recommend the paper for publication. This would help expedite the acceptance process for the authors. However, if the authors are unable to provide comprehensive answers and make the necessary revisions, the process of acceptance may take longer or it may be rejected. Therefore, I strongly encourage the authors to address all the above concerns and make the requested changes to the manuscript as commented above, and in return, I would be more than happy to reconsider my decision once these modifications have been fully made.
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. |
|||||||
|
Comments 1: The authors need to exercise more caution with certain statements that use capitalized words, as this style is not consistently applied throughout the article and should only be used in specific instances. Therefore, the phrases “Requirements analysis, Functional analysis, Logical design, Physical design analysis” should be revised to “requirements analysis, functional analysis, logical design, physical design analysis.” in the abstract. |
|||||||
|
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's meticulous attention to formatting details and their valuable suggestion regarding capitalization consistency. In accordance with standard academic writing conventions and journal-specific style requirements, we have systematically revised the specified phrases in the abstract as follows: Original: "Requirements analysis, Functional analysis, Logical design, Physical design analysis" Revised: "requirements analysis, functional analysis, logical design, physical design analysis" This correction has been implemented in the opening paragraph of the abstract (Page 1, Lines 8-11). |
|||||||
|
Comments 2: Concerning the provided keywords, for the first keyword, only its abbreviation has been given. The full equivalent statement should also be included. Therefore, "MBSE" should be revised to "Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE)" or simply "Model-Based System Engineering." Additionally, it would be better to change "digital twin" to "Digital Twin," and the styles of other keywords should be improved accordingly. |
|||||||
|
Response 2: We deeply appreciate the reviewer's expertise in identifying these crucial terminology presentation issues. We apologize for our previous unprofessional behavior. Therefore, we have modified "MBSE" to "Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)" in the keywords and capitalized the first letter of each word in other keywords (Page 1, Section Keywords).
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Comments 7: The initial data for digital twin systems can be collected from sensors located at various measuring points on the cable-stayed bridge. This data must also align with the numerical or analytical models created for bridges, whether for general studies or specific case analyses, under different load conditions. This connection should be emphasized in the paper, referencing the following novel relevant works: • Yang et al. (2025). Nonlinear flutter in a wind-excited double-deck truss girder bridge: experimental investigation and modeling approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, 113(7), 6427-6445. • Wang et al. (2024). A lightweight convolutional neural network for multipoint displacement measurements on bridge structures. Nonlinear Dynamics, 112(14), 11745-11763. • Yang et al. (2023). Experimental and numerical investigation of an arch–beam joint for an arch bridge. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 23(2), 101. • Zhang, C. (2023). The active rotary inertia driver system for flutter vibration control of bridges and various promising applications. Science China Technological Sciences, 66(2), 390-405. The digital twin can leverage the insights gained from numerical and analytical models to provide predictive maintenance, improve design processes, and ultimately ensure the structural integrity and safety of cable-stayed bridges. This synergy between the two aspects facilitates a more systematic and efficient approach to bridge management and engineering. Therefore, this important issue should be explained in the paper based on the novel references introduced above, leading into the discussion on the model-based systems engineering (MBSE), which is the focus of contributors in this study |
|
||||||
|
Response 7: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's astute observations regarding the critical connection between sensor data and analytical models in digital twin systems. We have added the connection between the measured data of digital twins and the theoretical data obtained from the finite element analysis model of the bridge (Page 12, Paragraph 1, Lines 6-8). At the same time, we have improved how to use these data for predictive maintenance of the bridge (Page 12, Paragraph 1, Lines 14-17). From the perspective of article relevance, we have cited Wang et al. (2024) recommended by the reviewers. |
|
||||||
|
Comments 8: There are still some grammatical, linguistic, and format errors, and unclear statements; therefore, the contributors should review the paper carefully and do their best to remove such deficiencies throughout the paper. For example, the two main issues raised in Page 9 are as follows: • Page 9: “increase sampling frequency, implement” à “increase sampling frequency and implement”; • Page 9: “On-site camera equipment monitors both the overall rotation process of the bridge and the local rotation process of the turntable, while temperature and humidity, as well as wind speed measurement systems, collect temperature, humidity, and wind speed data.” à “The On-site camera equipment monitors both the overall rotation process of the bridge and the local rotation process of the turntable, whereas temperature and humidity, as well as wind speed measurement systems, collect temperature, humidity, and wind speed data, respectively.”. |
|
||||||
|
Response 8: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's meticulous review and valuable suggestions for improving the manuscript's clarity. We have carefully checked the content of the article and corrected the grammar errors mentioned by the reviewer (Page 8, Paragraph 2, Lines 8-11; Page 9, Paragraph 1, Lines 8-11). |
|
||||||
|
We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript's rigor and accessibility while maintaining its original technical contributions. Thank you again for your invaluable feedback. Please let us know if any additional clarifications are needed. |
|
||||||
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is well revised; as a result, I recommend it.
