Studying the Cable Loss Effect on the Seismic Behavior of Cable-Stayed Bridge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please pay attention to the continuity of the manuscript: the numbering of the chapter titles is discontinuous

Please improve the quality of the pictures in the manuscript: some pictures use text that is not internationally accepted.

The use of some words in the manuscript is questionable, please raise it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The abstract is written in general. It is possible to add some values ​​from the current work to be more useful to the reader and give a clear picture of the content of the manuscript.

2. Explain the originality of the topic, objectives, aim, and methodology at the end of the introduction section

3. Figure 2 and 4 are not clear. Replace them with a better one

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study has been devoted to seismic analysis of cable-stayed bridge considering the effect of cable lost. The authors have used FE simulation in LS-DYNA. The structure has been subjected to El-Centro earthquake. The generality of of the paper is good and the topic of the research is interesting. It has been well-organized. However, some points should be considered

- The title can be improved as "Studying the cable loss effect on the seismic behavior of cable-stayed bridge". 

- The main contribution of the research should be presented clearly. The main novelty of this study is not clear. Please present at least three highlights for this research.

- The English language of the paper should be double-checked grammatically and lexically. For example, "This study evaluates the usability ...", is a too long sentence in which for two times, the verb of evaluate has been used. 

- Please specify the type of ground motion in the abstract (far or near field)

- In the abstract, the authors have discussed that they have used 3D beam element for modelling. It is better to discuss "3D beam element and two node cable element".

- Please modify the keyword section. The first two keywords are almost the same. 

- It seems that the reason for structural damage in Figure 1(b) is different from the others. In this figure, there is no cable loss damage. 

- Please improve the literature review by considering some recent articles, such as: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.05.016 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.022 - https://doi.org/10.1080/15732480902775615

- Please modify the title of section 2.3. What is the "D" at the start of this section?

- The resolution of Figure 2 is very low. 

- What is the section of PY1 and PY2?

- How did you model the section of PY1 and PY2 in the software, according to the figure 2?

- How do you justify the error of frequency related to the first horizontal mode?

- The conclusion part should be re-organized. At first of this section, a summary of the research should be discussed and the main novelty of the research should be clarified. Then, the main original results can be presented point by point. 

The paper requires a major revision on English language. Some sentences are too long and not clear. There are some lexical errors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Since the second reference (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.022), which has been discussed previously, is an analytical study on the developing an efficient cable element which can be employed for modelling prestressed cables in cable-stayed bridges, I think it can be referred and investigated in the introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf