Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of Transport Constructions Made of Corrugated Metal Structures Reinforced with Transversal Stiffening Ribs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper verifies the bearing capacity of corrugated metal structures, which is valuable for practical usage. However, there are a few questions and problems that  should be explained to further demonstrate the contribution of this study, given as follows,

1.      Generally speaking, there is a lack of novelty for this study, based on the current paper I read. I feel it is quite necessary to further demonstrate what is the innovation part of the study.

2.      In abstract, it is claimed that “double corrugation increases the bearing capacity of corrugated metal structures and allows for restoration of the bearing capacity of damaged corrugated metal structures under operating conditions…”. However, I cannot find any information about the restoration of the damaged structure. More details should be elaborated to address that.

3.      In Section 3, the moment of inertia of the structure is calculated, which, in terms of methodology, is quite straight forward without much effort. I would not recommend to take it as a single part of the part. Maybe it can be briefly introduced in building the FE model.

4.      In Table 1, moment of inertia for the two types of structure I_I and I_II are 18141 and 37432, respectively. I_I seems not equal 0.5*I_II strictly, which it should be if I understand correctly.

5.      P_ekv in Figure 9 is not mentioned in the text at all.

6.      In Section 6, the FEM is used to study the stresses and deformations of the structures. However, the FE model should be further demonstrated, especially the part of the corrugated metal structures. More importantly, the FE model should be validated. It includes the mesh sensitivity check, the connections between the structure and the backfills, the boundary conditions and loading conditions, etc.

7.      It seems that the results in Fig. 12 and 13 are not consistent with those listed in Table 4. Please explain it.

No comment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, see the attached PDF document in which you can check all the changes tracked after the answers to your questions. Yours sincerely, The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Presented problem of design of structures made of corrugated sheets has practical meaning and is scientifically important. In my opinion the manuscript is worth publishing but after several changes.

The organization of the manuscript notation should be systematized. The novelty elements and scientific importance should be underlined in the introduction and conclusion parts of the manuscript. The conclusion part should be extended. The calculation procedures should be presented more clearly with the explanations of many parameters, which are not shown in Figures. The parts of the bending moment in whole value presented in Fig. 3, line 86-88 should be explained, too. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, see the attached PDF document in which you can check all the changes tracked after the answers to your questions. Yours sincerely, The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors studied the a determination approach of the stiffening ribs locations on the constructions. Based on the theoretical calculation and numerical simulation, the locations of the stiffening ribs were decided to be the stronger strain region under the service. The entire study flow seems smooth and the manuscript were well written. The reviewer only suggests minor revision on the numerical simulation part of the work.

Since the authors make  the conclusion of the work almost fully depends on the results of the numerical simulation, the detail of the numerical simulation needs to be described in the revised manuscript. At least, the clear view of the model in 3D view, the boundary conditions, the applied governing equations, and other common details.

Furthermore, the presentations of Figure12 and 13 are not clear. The color bars on the side can not read clearly. Please use the identical scales for Figure 12 a and Figure 13 a, Figure 12b and Figure 13 b.

In Figure 10, the reviewer suggests the authors to the same vertical scale for a and b.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, see the attached PDF document in which you can check all the changes tracked after the answers to your questions. Yours sincerely, The Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made proper modifications with respect to the comments. It is appreciated for the detailed explanations to the questions about the FE model. However, it seems some contents are not quite necessary in this part. For instance, Fig. 11, 12, 14, 15 are basic knowledge, and I would recommend to mention them rather than to elaborate with graphs.

Another remained question is about Q2. In the responses, two papers and a graph were referred to show the usage of CMS to restore the loading capacity. So it is reasonable to state that in the introduction part. However, in the abstract, it is demonstrated as a part of the conclusion of this study, which requires to be researched in a more profound way, involving the damage on the existing structures, and correspondingly, to what level that CMS can restore the loading capacity. Since I believe it is not the work in this paper, I would recommend to modify the abstract.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attached PDF document, which also contains a comparison section to the previously submitted version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, improve the name of Kirchhoff 's modulus and the notation of conclusion. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attached PDF document, which also contains a comparison section to the previously submitted version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf