应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » 外审意见回来，大家评论评论
51/1返回列表
查看: 1547  |  回复: 3
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

hhgbhh

金虫 (小有名气)

[求助] 外审意见回来，大家评论评论

Editorial Summary
Manuscript BEENG-1464 studies temperature distributions in deep concrete box girders bridges under the solar radiation, a topic of potential interest to the bridge engineering community. The manuscript was reviewed by two expert Reviewers that found some merits but also many issues related to the form (poor English) and contents (many parts of the presented study and its relations with previously published works on the same subject require clarifications and improvements, discrepancy between title and actual contents), as detailed in the following review reports. Thus, the submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current version and must be accurately revised in its form (comprehensive English language revision) and contents (each comment by the two Reviewers requires careful consideration) and then re-reviewed by the same two Reviewers before it could be considered for publication.

Reviewer #2: This paper, even though titled "thermal gradients and their effects on the deep concrete box girder under solar radition," only discussed and evaluated temperature variations and gradients for a deep concrete box girder. For better knowledgeable for engineers and researchers, this reviewer strongly recommend that this paper should evaluate the effects of the thermal gradients on the structural behavior of the girder such as stresses and deformations using experimental, analytical, and/or numerical studies. In addition, this reviewer recommends the authors revise and discuss the following things:

Reviewer #3: The content of the paper is modern and within the scopes of the Journal.
It is always very interesting to compare theoretically predicted temperature distributions in bridges situated in different Countries and submitted to very different boundary conditions with extended collections of measured data and the present paper contains such results.
The scientific method is correct and the results agreed with the data obtained by similar researches.
Some error in the English syntax.
Three remarks about the references:
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
1楼2013-11-22 16:57:26
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

sculhf

荣誉版主 (知名作家)

断翼天使

优秀版主优秀版主

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
只要好好修改英语
接受一般没有问题
回复的时候一定要详尽
委婉的表达
赞一下 回复此楼
谋事在人成事在天
4楼2013-11-22 17:45:30
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 4 个回答

星野朔夜

金虫 (正式写手)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与，应助指数 +1
审稿意见没全列出不好说呀，编辑意见看是major revision，主要是语言问题，找人润色吧，其他具体技术问题审稿人应该有说
赞一下 回复此楼
2楼2013-11-22 17:18:26
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

hhgbhh

金虫 (小有名气)
引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by 星野朔夜 at 2013-11-22 17:18:26
审稿意见没全列出不好说呀，编辑意见看是major revision，主要是语言问题，找人润色吧，其他具体技术问题审稿人应该有说

给你贴出来
1)Most of all, Fig 4 and Figs 9-14 show lots of temperature distriutions and variations in the box girder section. The authors need to reduce temperature figures and describe the effects of the temperature distriubtion in the girder section regarding the thermal behavior of the girder in more detail. The paper shows lots of temperatuare figures but unfortunately harldy find technical and engineering meanings with not showing specific, technical words and numbers. In particular, temperautre of the deck slab is the highest in Fig. 4, but  the temperature of the web is larger thatn that of the deck. The reviewer recommends that the authors need to evaluate the temperature effects in Sections of "Temperature distributions in the deep concrete box girder" in more detail from a technical standpoint. Also, Section of "Temperature predicting model of the concrete box girder" require reviewing the errors of the notation and the variables along with references.  
2)The authors need to describe how to determine the words or phrases of "the worst conditions," "the most critical," "the effective temperature," "average temperature," and "significant warming, stablising, and dropping trend," used in the paper. In addition, the authors should tell the result temperatures along with the time and the date, as well as how you select the days for the analysis, not just saying that "the weather experienced a significatn warming trend. The reviewer recommends that the authors should more focus on the quantitative and technical description for the words and phrases used in the paper.   
3) For the concrete box girder, the reveiwer think that sevearl codes including AASHTO provide the transverse temperature diffrences for the calucation of thermal deformation caused by environmental effect. Furthermoe, there are sevearl recent papers studying on the transverse temperature diferences in I-bridge girders, which would also be helpful for the box girder. The reviewer recommends that The authors review sevearl related papers including the below papers:
- "Investigation of Extreme Environmental Conditions and Design Thermal Gradients during Construction for Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders," ASCE Bridge Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 3, May/Jne 2012.  
- "Analysis of Thermal Environmental Effects on Precast, Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girders: Temperature Differentials and Thermal Deformations," Advances in Structural Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 3, March 2012.  
4) Finally, the reviewer recommends that the authors need to correct somewhat lots of English errors with a Native speakers final proofreading.



1) The original title of the F. Kehlbeck paper was “Einfluss der Sonnenbestrahlung bei Brueckenbauwerken” , Werner Verlag, Duesseldorf, 1975.  Here it is reported as “The influence of solar radiation on the bridge structure”, Liu,X.F. China Railway Publishing House, Beijing , 1981 (in Chinese) as it was published in China. I fear there could be some copyright irregularity.
2) A research very similar to that of the present paper was carried out by M.Froli and Others on a prestressed concrete girder bridge in Italy. The results were published on Structural Engineering International N° 4, 1996. This contribute has been cited many times by different Authors among which also Virlogeaux when he studied the thermal behaviour of Normandy Bridge. Why the Authors of the present paper decided not to cite this work?
3) Comparisons between the proposed temperature profiles and those recommended by different Standards do not comprise Eurocode N°1, Part 2.5 “Thermal Actions”. Why?
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2013-11-22 17:23:17
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 4 个回答
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭