投稿ASCE，审稿意见大致如下，最后编辑给了拒稿，求助是否可申请重投机会，谢谢啦

Reviewer #1: This manuscript describes research on****.  I need to say that the manuscript is really hard to read. Thus, I had quite often a hard time to capture the meaning of many phrases. Just because of inappropriate language I cannot recommend the manuscript for publication. ***十多条意见，包括修改语句，解释现象和结论，并让加一些东西。
Reviewer #2: This manuscript presents a relatively new structural solution applicable to ****. A ** approach was assumed to investigate the ****. In general, the idea behind this work is sound and the paper provides a preliminary insight on a practically interesting problem. In some cases the submission lacks in terms of presented data/information and the exposition of the research is weakened by that. As such, the authors are encouraged to address the following points, which will hopefully increase the quality of the manuscript even further (not in the order of importance):***十多条意见，让引用几篇文献，解释数值模型和更正语句错误
Reviewer #3: The technical content of this paper may be great, but the grammar needs improvement.  It is hard to understand and is very awkward.  There are passages that I read several times and was unable to determine the meaning.  I think it should be reviewed by an editor if the authors are not able to correct the grammar. 没有审稿意见 返回小木虫查看更多