Models for the Analysis of the Structural Capacity of Railway Bridges in Peru in Accordance with the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association Standard

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study conducts structural analysis and performance evaluation of railway bridges in Peru using finite element analysis and structural software, focusing on seismic effects, the adaptability of historical bridges, and structural reinforcement strategies to optimize the safety, durability, and maintenance management of railway bridges.This logic is confusing, and there are many problems to be solved.

1. The content of the abstract section is logically disordered, the research objective is not clear, there are no key results or conclusions, and it is suggested to make adjustments and additions.
2. The content of the pictures in the article is not clear. For instance, Figure 1 and Figure 2, etc.
3. It is recommended that the author expand the literature review section, particularly by incorporating the latest research developments. Additionally, the author should analyze the current challenges encountered.
4. The article's structure is disorganized, and Section 2 is missing. Additionally, it is recommended that the results and discussion sections be combined to enhance readability and allow readers to follow the research findings and conclusions more easily.
5. The titles of the tables and figures are confused with each other. It is suggested to make the corrections.
6. The specific loading method of the model is unclear, making it difficult for readers to understand. It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation.
7. The novel findings should be highlighted in conclusions and the description should be polished. Current conclusions are hard to understand the core information and findings of this study.
8. The writing should be proofed carefully and some description is a little hard to follow and understand.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language expression is not precise. It is recommended to carefully review the entire text.

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the structural analysis and load-bearing capacity assessment of Peruvian railway bridges, conducting a systematic study in conjunction with the American AREMA standards. Through linear analysis and finite element methods, and utilizing structural software such as SAP2000, CSI Bridge, and GEO5, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the performance factors (RF) of Peruvian railway bridges. The study covers data from multiple railway corridors, including the Southern Railway, Central Andean Railway, and the Wancayo–Huancavelica Railway, and takes into account seismic standards as well as recommendations for the retrofitting of existing structures. The paper demonstrates certain levels of technical innovation and practical value, with specific suggestions as follows:
(1)In the introduction, further clarify the research problem and objectives, avoiding lengthy background descriptions. It is recommended to explicitly state the specific goals and expected contributions of the study in a paragraph at the end of the introduction. Additionally, provide a more detailed explanation of the motivation behind the research, particularly the rationale for selecting the AREMA standards as a reference, and discuss the applicability and limitations of these standards in the context of Peruvian railway bridges.
(2)Elaborate more on the validation process of the finite element model, including comparative analysis with actual measurement data to enhance the credibility of the methodology. It is suggested to supplement the study with monitoring data from real bridges and compare these data with the prediction results of the finite element model to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of the model.
(3)Provide detailed explanations of the analysis procedures for each type of bridge, including the methods of load application, boundary condition settings, and criteria for result evaluation. It is recommended to present the analysis process in the form of a flowchart to help readers better understand the research methods.
(4)Engage in a deeper discussion on the impact of environmental factors on bridge performance, such as corrosion, temperature variations, and seismic activities. It is suggested to supplement the study with relevant research literature, analyze the influence of these factors on bridge lifespan, and propose corresponding protective measures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has publishable information and in general it is well written. The literature review seems complete. Two things should be explained ore revised in the revised version of the paper:

• In occurrence of corroded parts, the structural analysis model should definitely include reduced sections. As a result of that, the overall capacity of the railway bridge will be reduced which eventually means that the maximum moving loading acceptable has also to be reduced. Please elaborate on this.
• Early warning systems can be employed for a safe (temporary) shutdown of the railways. These systems activate when a threshold of ground acceleration (say 0.10g) is surpassed. Please elaborate on this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Evaluation

 

The paper examines the structural analysis and verification model of railway bridges according to the American AREMA standard. The study employs linear analysis and finite element methods (FEM) using structural software like SAP2000, CSI Bridge, and GE05. It focuses on railway bridges in Peru, utilizing data from several railway corridors and feasibility studies of the Interoceanic Train project.  The paper requires major revisions for enhanced clarity, technical accuracy, and structural coherence.

 

Comments

 

-The significance and novelty of the findings should be more explicitly emphasized throughout the Abstract and Introduction sections.

 

-The paper could address the broader impact of the research on the field of structural engineering. How do these findings contribute to the overall knowledge base? What are the potential practical applications beyond the immediate study?

 

-The paper is heavily focused on the specific findings of this study. Incorporating a brief discussion on how these results compare with previous research could provide a more comprehensive view.

 

-The introduction jumps between different studies without a clear connection or flow. It would benefit from a more structured narrative. Besides, the introduction doesn't clearly state the unique contribution of the current study. It's important to highlight what new insights this study aims to provide.   

 

-Please provide more details about the methodology used for the structural analysis and verification model.

 

-Please elaborate on the assumptions made regarding temperature gradients, train speeds, and load combinations?

 

-What specific maintenance strategies do you recommend based on your findings? Are there any immediate actions that should be taken for the most at-risk bridges?

 

Authors can use more recent articles in the Introduction section, such as the following paper:

Shiyao et al., Rail Defect Classification with Deep Learning Method, Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 

 

-It appears that the title of Section 2 has been omitted between the Introduction and Results sections.

 

-In conclusion; there are several points that are repeated in different ways, such as the need for frequent inspections and maintenance, which could be consolidated to make the conclusion more concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents comprehensive research content and substantial details. The newly revised version further refines the content, making it even more complete.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend accepting the paper.