Influence of Construction Joint and Bridge Geometry on Integral Abutment Bridges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper topic is of interest for readers. However, the deacription of FE model that is used for the discussion is weak and should be properly extended. Missing data about modelling and simulation make the reader unable to control the methods of analysis, and thus to judge the final outcomes.

Please take care of this aspect while reviewing the original manuscript.

• extend with appropriate details the content of section 3
• in this regard, a detail view (or schematic drawing) should be presented for the model in figure 4. It is possible to notice that multiple shell elements are used to create the joint region. But this model axonometry does not allow to understand the model structure and thus the expected behaviour.
• please clarify the content of figure 5
• in the model of figure 5, different colors can be seen, but no legend is provided and thus the figure is not readable
•  

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for careful review of our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Response and modifications have been made to address the reviewers’ comments. Please find the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with investigating the behavior of integral bridge abutments (IABs( considering the effects of several parameters including  girder material, bridge length, backfill height, and construction joint below girder seats. It was found out that forces and moments in the superstructure and the substructure due to thermal movements and time-dependent loads cannot be negligible and should be considered in the design process. This research is interesting, it can be recommended for publication in this journal after minor revision.

• The main aim of this study is not clear.
• The literature review of the paper can be improved by considering some recent and relevant articles published in this issue such as:

International Journal of Civil Infrastructure 4 (2021): 46-54.

Journal of Constructional Steel Research 180 (2021): 106604

• The authors should clarify the main differences between their study and the following references:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111381

• What is the reference of construction timeline provided in figure 2?
• How did the authors consider the connection between the pile and abutment-backfill
• More details should be presented for the numerical modeling in ANSYS.
• The graphs observed in Figure 4 should be explained separately.
• In figure 7, the legend is not match with the symbols used for the graphs! In addition, the legend in figure 7 is not complete.
• What is the meaning of STL in figure 7?
• The conclusion part is too long. In the conclusion part, only highlighted results should be presented. It is better to present the recommendations in a separate section.
• The English language of this article should be double-checked, especially grammatically.

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for careful review of our manuscript and providing us with valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Response and modifications have been made to address the reviewers’ comments. Please find the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx