Review of Ground Penetrating Radar Applications for Bridge Infrastructures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my comments are shown in the attached annotated manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. We have implemented the manuscript with all your comments and corrections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' efforts in highlighting the non-destructive advantages and the role of GPR in data visualisation and interpretation in bridge engineering. Below, I provide some constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the depth and coverage of the manuscript:

1.    The manuscript commendably provides literature review on data processing methods in GPR. However, a detailed explanation of the specific methodologies compared, including a discussion on their relative merits and limitations, would be beneficial. A more comprehensive literature review could significantly enlighten readers on the current state of the art and provide context for this work's contributions.
2.    The paper wisely considers the importance of studying bridge pillars, identifying an area where literature is scarce. To fully leverage this opportunity, a more thorough investigation into the unique challenges and methodologies relevant to pillar analysis via GPR, along with specific findings, is recommended. This could solidify the paper as a valuable resource in this area of research.
3.    While the research on beams is thoroughly presented, the manuscript could benefit from a more balanced investigation that includes a focus on columns and slabs, ensuring a holistic overview of the structural elements of bridges.
4.    The discussion on concrete bridges and associated laboratory-scale studies is notably robust. Clarifying the availability and scope of masonry laboratory-scale models within the examined literature would be advantageous.
5.    Real-world case studies illustrating how GPR methodology has been successfully implemented are absent from the current manuscript draft (Table 3 is missing from the manuscript). Including such studies could lend credibility to the effectiveness of GPR as a non-destructive device in practical environments.
6.    Adding quantitative analysis to complement the qualitative descriptions in the manuscript would enhance the scientific consistency of the work. Data on the accuracy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of GPR applications would serve to strengthen the arguments presented and provide valuable benchmarks.
7.    Although the paper effectively underscores the importance of GPR in bridge assessments, a critical analysis discussing the method's potential constraints and challenges would round out the discussion. This aspect could inform a series of practical recommendations for future research and field application.
8.    Validation of the methodologies discussed within real-world conditions and the correlation between simulated results and actual field data could be improved. This critical information would aid in establishing the practical applicability and reliability of the GPR method.
9.    The absence of supplementary materials is noted. For improved practical relevance and to facilitate reader comprehension, adding supplementary content such as case studies, relevant data sets, or visualisations produced through the GPR analysis could prove invaluable.

I believe that addressing the points mentioned above will significantly enhance the manuscript's impact and provide valuable insights for future research in this vital domain of infrastructure integrity assessment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank your suggestions and comments. You can find all the modifications in red on the new manuscript.

Moreover, we tried to reply to all your comments:

1. The manuscript commendably provides literature review on data processing methods in GPR. However, a detailed explanation of the specific methodologies compared, including a discussion on their relative merits and limitations, would be beneficial. A more comprehensive literature review could significantly enlighten readers on the current state of the art and provide context for this work's contributions.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. We have restructured the manuscript and inserted new comments and analysis to help the reader understand the GPR applications on bridges.

 

2. The paper wisely considers the importance of studying bridge pillars, identifying an area where literature is scarce. To fully leverage this opportunity, a more thorough investigation into the unique challenges and methodologies relevant to pillar analysis via GPR, along with specific findings, is recommended . This could solidify the paper as a valuable resource in this area of research.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments and suggestions. During our revision work, we noticed that most of the articles dedicated to bridges always discussed slab and beams, but not at all about pillars. In fact, we only found a couple of articles and a few technical reports. Therefore, we put more emphasis on this aspect and what is expected in the future to decrease this disadvantage.

 

3. While the research on beams is thoroughly presented, the manuscript could benefit from a more balanced investigation that includes a focus on columns and slabs, ensuring a holistic overview of the structural elements of bridges.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. As we wrote before, we improved this aspect.

 

4. The discussion on concrete bridges and associated laboratory-scale studies is notably robust. Clarifying the availability and scope of masonry laboratory-scale models within the examined literature would be advantageous.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. When we started writing this paper we were only thinking of reinforced concrete bridges, but since there were a few articles in the literature on masonry structures then it seemed useful to include them. Therefore, following your suggestion, we added a description of work carried out in the laboratory for bridge masonry (Diamant et al., [16]).

 

5. Real-world case studies illustrating how GPR methodology has been successfully implemented are absent from the current manuscript draft (Table 3 is missing from the manuscript). Including such studies could lend credibility to the effectiveness of GPR as a non-destructive device in practical environments .

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. We have rewritten several parts of the manuscript and hope to have answered your request.

 

6. Adding quantitative analysis to complement the qualitative descriptions in the manuscript would enhance the scientific consistency of the work. Data on the accuracy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of GPR applications would serve to strengthen the arguments presented and provide valuable benchmarks.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. We have rewritten several parts of the manuscript and we tried to improve the paper also on these aspects.

 

 

7. Although the paper effectively underscores the importance of GPR in bridge assessments, a critical analysis discussing the method's potential constraints and challenges would round out the discussion. This aspect could inform a series of practical recommendations for future research and field application.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. We tried to improve the paper by introducing a more effective part in the discussion

 

8. Validation of the methodologies discussed within real-world conditions and the correlation between simulated results and actual field data could be improved. This critical information would aid in establishing the practical applicability and reliability of the GPR method.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments. We have rewritten some parts of the manuscript trying to improve the comparison between the real case and laboratory tests.

 

9. The absence of supplementary materials is noted. For improved practical relevance and to facilitate reader comprehension, adding supplementary content such as case studies, relevant data sets, or visualisations produced through the GPR analysis could prove invaluable.

Authors: Thanks so much for your comments but in a review paper we are not able to insert supplementary materials.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.