Flaw Detection in Aluminum Plates Using a Rotating Uniform Eddy Current Probe with Two Pairs of Excitation Coils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted with no modification.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1    

Thank you very much for your helpful comments. This paper has been revised again following the Reviewer suggestion. Our responses to Reviewer comments are given below. We hope this revision meets expectations and that the revised text can be accepted for publication in Metals.

REVIEWER #1

Comment #1

Accepted with no modification.

   Thank you very much for your reviewing by using your valuable time.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript describes a new design for a rotating Eddy current probe. The concept is based on construction of two layers of excitation coils each one being a unidirectional butterfly probe. The coils are oriented transverse to one another so as to obtain a setup which can theoretically detect flaws in all directions. 

While the concept is original and interesting there are questions which must be answered before the work can be published. One major concern is the lack of information regarding the computational analysis, small experimental set reported and no comparison between computations and experiments.  

Questions:

There is no details regarding the computational model used. What program was used? what are the governing equations solved by the numerical method? how was the model setup? how many elements or computational cells? what type of elements? Why is there no verification reported for the computational analysis? were the flaws modeled in the analysis?   the authors state that the number of turns can greatly influence the results. I would assume that this relates to the distance between each layer and the specimen examined. why did the authors not use the computational analysis to optimize the number of turns for each coil?  

 

Questions regarding the reported results:

The test cases used for testing the proposed probe are very limited more cases should be examined. The authors should comment on the sensitivity of the results. how would the results reported in Figure 8 for scanning path #1 change if for instance scanning path # 1 was repeated several times?  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for providing such research, I really like the method you wrote and your research has a good structure. I can see also these authors published in the same area in MDPI sensors. Their previous publications in Sensors shows that they are working well and well aware of the cutting edge of this field. However, only some minor changes can help the visibility and also the quality of your research. I highly recommend you to add more references, more specifically those published in recent years. Improve the abstract to give more background and also tell more about your findings and your methods inside abstract. Your Conclusions part is very small please provide your findings in bullets to make it more readable and understandable for readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of the comments given. This reviewers thinks the computational part of the manuscript is still lacking. The authors should include in the manuscript the details provided in the letter to the reviewer. 

The governing equations which the program solves should be explicitly given.  The number of computational cells should be explicitly given  

The authors did not answer the questions regarding solution verification or did not understand this reviewers question.

The authors should provide evidence or state that the computational results are converged. This means that the results do not change when the number of computational cells in increased.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf