Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting and timely. The increase of structural components is very important due to safety and economic design of structures. Authors widely present the problem of Wooden Lattice Sandwich Structures. The review of the problem is wide and clear, and presents important informations.  

The experiment was presented widely and clearly. Enough informations were shown about the experimental tests as well the analitical and numerical analyses.

Obtained results were discusseda and compared with results of theoretical and numerical calculation.

The article is worth to be presented. Some corrections are necessary. There are exact informations included in attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor,

I have revised all the questions raised by the reviewers one by one. Most revision questions are formatting issues, so please upload the revised draft. Please check.

Please see attachment.

kind regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The topic presented in the paper is of sure interested for the correct use of wooden based product in construction.

However, some minor improvements are needed: the mechanical tests should be described more in detail, including the amount of specimens tested for each product type.

Overall the numbers of the literature cited are wrong because of the wrong number 1 reference (typo).

 

Specific comments (difficult to explain without the row numbering)

Abstract: …” the specimen was reinforced”. The reinforcement should be described.

Introduction

Page 1: “… which need high stiffness and high bending stiffness”. Something is missing or wrong?

P2 at the end of the first paragraph: “The greater the thickness and material density …” This and the following sentences are not clear.

P2, third paragraph: “according to the region of the wood growth and wood denstity”. Please, specify.

P2, last paragraph: “…were discussed by using a universal mechanical testing …”, maybe “were determined by using a universal testing machine”?

P2, last paragraph: “…sandwich structures and plywood veneer reinforced...”. Not clear at this point.

P3: the first paragraph is entirely a typo. As well as the paragraph after the figure 1

P3: “dis the grove height”, it should be “b”

P4, point 3.1 Mechanical behaviors of raw materials: the larch panel should be better described (it is not only finger jointed but also edge-glued, I presume).

The test need to be detailed, as well as the number of specimens tested.

The values of MOE seem strange: compressive MOE very high and flexural MOE very low.

The standard ASTM C365 is not included in the reference list.

P5: Before starting with the results, the mechanical tests on the final product should be also described, including the number of specimens tested for each type.

P5, point 4.1: move the first paragraph to the materials and methods.

P6, point 4.2. The veneer should be better described (species, thickness….)

P8, beginning: the calculation should be moved to the materials and methods

P9, point4.3 and point 4.3.1: title is missing

Conclusion: it could be interesting for the reader to include in the conclusions some numerical results.

References: the number [1] is a typo, therefore the numbering along the text is wrong.

Author Response

Dear editor,

 I have responded to the reviewers' comments point-by-point. Since only one document can be uploaded, I put the modification instructions at the end of the article (Just after the reference section).

The uploaded and modified articles are the same, but the format is different.

This is in the hope that it will be beneficial to the editor's review.

Kind regards,

Authour  Dongxia Yang, Changsheng Fan, YingchengHu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf