Structural Assessment Techniques for In-Service Crossarms in Power Distribution Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research contributions of the paper should be articulated more clearly. The abstract is not representative of the content and contributions of the paper.

·       The abstract does not seem to properly convey the rigor of research.

·       Aside from the aim stated in the title, the research gap and the goals of the research are not specified which leads to the reader missing the significance of the research.

·       More explanation is needed for where there is a research gap and what the goals of the research are. The research gap and the goals of the research are not explained in detail which leads to the reader missing the significance of the research.

·       Methods section determines the results. Kindly focus on three basic elements of the methods section.

o   How the study was designed?

o   How the study was carried out?

o   How the data were analyzed?

·       Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

·       Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

·       It is suggested to compare, discuss comprehensively and cite other similar studies which is done before such as  10.1016/j.jmrt.2019.09.033; 10.3390/polym14071330 and 10.1007/s12221-021-0512-1

Author Response

Please find attached response 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper reviews the prevailing techniques adopted for health monitoring of cross-arms. The article is a good read and match for the section Infrastructures Inspection and Maintenance of the journal Infrastructures. I have some comments for the authors to consider when they modify their paper as below:

- Most of the references reviewed in this work are outdated. A simple search on google scholar suggests that there is plenty of ongoing research in the literature that the reviewers could have considered in their review.

- Regarding the previous comment, please add an elaborate section on the application of UAVs and image processing techniques for crossarms inspection.

- Regarding Figure 5, the authors mention, "The calculated MOR values for the tested specimens can be used to benchmark the health ratings of inspectors to improve the visual examination rating system. " Please elaborate on how this benchmark can be constructed?

- In Line 296: Please modify "fibre reinforce polymer" to fibre reinforced polymer.

- In line 307: to maintain consistency, please modify "cross-arms" to crossarms.

Author Response

Please find attached response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have been addressed all of the comments. Accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all this reviewer's comments. Therefore, the paper can be recommended for publication.