Developing Statistical and Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network Models for a Concrete Dam Dynamic Behaviour Interpretation^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript entitled: “Developing Statistical and Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network Models for a Concrete Dam Dynamic Behaviour Interpretation”. This study investigates the dynamic monitoring behavior of concrete dams with Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN) models. Please address all of the provided comments:

·         First, please add related work in the Introduction. Currently, your paper does not include a review of the relevant literature.

·         Second, novelty and innovation are critical criteria for publication, please explain about the novelty of your research. 

·         Third, please scrutinize the main limitation and scope of this study.

·         Fourth, there are no references from Infrastructure’s journal! Why? You have only 11 references.

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Solid research has been conducted in this paper, and it could be considered for publication pending the following revisions:

(1) The Introduction section is currently too brief. More detail is needed to provide a clearer context and background for the study. The authors should elaborate on the motivation, significance, and objectives of the work.

(2) The paper lacks a dedicated Literature Review section. It is strongly recommended to add this section to better situate the research within the existing body of knowledge and to highlight the contributions of this study in comparison to prior work.

(3) There are inconsistencies in the section numbering. Specifically, Section 3.1 directly follows Section 2 with no intermediate content, suggesting that Section 3.1 should be renumbered as Section 2.1. Additionally, there are two sections labeled 3.2. These issues should be corrected for clarity and proper structure.

(4) The case study uses data from the period 2015 to 2018. This time frame is relatively short and outdated. It is highly recommended to test the models using more recent and extensive data to strengthen the validity and relevance of the findings.

(5) Finally, the paper lacks a Conclusion section. Please add one to summarise the key findings, contributions, and potential directions for future work.

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all the provided comments. In this round, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its current form in the Infrastructure journal.