Shear Lag Effect of Ultra-Wide Box Girder under Influence of Shear Deformation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is an exciting paper, but the Reviewer has some comments:
- Introduction - The authors should check what novelty is in their paper and compare it with other papers. In addition, you should add papers from the last five years (about the topic in your paper). What is the principal aim of this paper?
-methods – in line 402, you mentioned Midas (numerical software), but the Reviewer cannot see the numerical model from this software. This is true?
“The MIDAS/FEA NX spatial finite-element software was used to build a solid simulation model of a single-box, three-chamber, simply supported box girder.”
- results - please look at all the Figures with results. In my opinion, the current version is not clear, and their interpretation is tough. Generally, the figures should describe in detail all results, but in this case, they are not visible.
- Figure 9 – numerical and theoretical results show the same tendency. In the experience of the Reviewer, this is not possible. Thus, please explain in detail this aspect.
- discussion – where is a discussion of results and their comparison with results from other papers.
- Conclusion - Please reread your paper and try to write more than two conclusions. Please explain the tendency and impact of your research. What is the next step of your research?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please use more professional language
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Shear lag effect of ultra-wide box girder under influence of shear deformation” ID:( applsci-2954653). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will influence the content and framework of the paper, which we explained in detail earlier. Please see the attachment for details.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Yanfeng Li and Jiyuan Xie.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· In the introduction, the references should appear at the end of the sentence [1]. Also, there should be a space between the last letter and the left bracket.
· Where references [7-11] are lumped together to list the various functions, perhaps it would be good to describe each one individually.
· The dimensions given in Figure 2 should be introduced in the text above.
· On pg. 3, line 95, the shear flow is an important eqn. and should be introduced separately. Also, the variables should be introduced in the text.
· The font size changes between equation 3 and 4.
· Pg. 4, lines 122 and 123: way references are called out should be consistent as before [19], [20] instead of footnotes.
· Font size seems to change anytime a variable is called out in the text, especially with parenthesis such as pg. 7, line 204.
· Perhaps consider breaking section 2 into subsections because the derivation is quite long (9 pages).
· Same comment as before with a footnote being used on pg. 13, line 382.
· Same comment as before that the font size increases in section 4, paragraph 2.
· Poisson’s ratio should be nu, not mu.
· The experimental setup looks impressive! You should have a bigger and clearer picture of Fig. 7(a).
· Fig. 7(b) is the strain gauge measurement apparatus, not the strain gauge itself.
· What kind of strain gauges were used? Where are they located?
· What does the strain gauge data look like?
· You don’t need to number the paragraphs in the conclusion. They don’t correlate to specific questions or hypotheses in the introduction.
· Overall, nicely done!
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenone
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Shear lag effect of ultra-wide box girder under influence of shear deformation” ID:( applsci-2954653). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will influence the content and framework of the paper, which we explained in detail earlier. Please see the attachment for details.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Yanfeng Li and Jiyuan Xie.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Shear lag effect of ultra-wide box girder under influence of shear deformation” ID:( applsci-2954653). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will influence the content and framework of the paper, which we explained in detail earlier. Please see the attachment for details.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Yanfeng Li and Jiyuan Xie.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Reviewer cannot see an improvement in point 1 in the text about the novelty of your text. The authors should improve this paragraph. In addition, please add more papers about the numerical modeling of the bridges from the best Journals in the World.
Example of papers:
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030640
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020650
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020495
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Shear lag effect of ultra-wide box girder under influence of shear deformation” ID:( applsci-2954653). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. We have carefully studied these comments and they are fully addressed in the revised manuscript. Replies are now marked in blue color and revisions are now marked in red color in our manuscript.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will influence the content and framework of the paper, which we explained in detail earlier. For more details, please see the attached document.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Yanfeng Li and Jiyuan Xie.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for your improvement. In the opinion of the Reviewer, the introduction is still poor. Please describe in this part problems, tendencies, new trends, and new solutions in your area of research. In the current version, it is not enough. Please look at the paper from the best Journals, and please improve your paper according to these examples papers:
- https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020650
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-023-01719-6
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.017
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Shear lag effect of ultra-wide box girder under influence of shear deformation” ID:( applsci-2954653). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval.
The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the comments. We have carefully studied these comments and they are fully addressed in the revised manuscript. Replies are now marked in blue color and revisions are now marked in red color in our manuscript. Our response to each comment and the associated action to address the comment are provided below. please see the attachment for details.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will influence the content and framework of the paper, which we explained in detail earlier.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
Yanfeng Li and Jiyuan Xie.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your improve.
