Theoretical Study of the Effect of Fibre Porosity on the Heat Conductivity of Reinforced Gypsum Composite Material
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer’s comment:
This manuscript deals with the the effect of fibre porosity on the heat conductivity of reinforced gypsum composite materials.
In all, the paper falls within the scope of this journal and is written in a clear way and most of the claims are supported by data and figures. It is of great significance to scholars and the results are very important significance for industry manufacturers.
Thus, I indeed think the paper can be accepted.
Author Response
Authors:
We appreciate these beautiful words that will have a positive impact on our souls and motivate us to work with a new spirit.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Article structure is prepared according to journal Polymers and author instructions.
The topic is in the scope of the journal Polymers. Article presents interesting topic about theoretical and experimental study based on the fibre porosity and heat conductivity of reinforced such as sisal, glass fibres composite materials.
Here are my comments:
1) Abstract: Line 17: authors write that the experimental studies were conducted mainly on sisal/glass fibre epoxy composites. Aren’t in combination with gypsum instead of epoxy?
2) Introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references. Heat conductivity of polymers and composites is written in detail and clearly presented.
3) The aim and the goals of the research are clearly presented.
4) Lines 262-332: Chapter 2.2. Numerical Modelling if Cylindrical Coordinates, authors wrote an equations, which should be also cited, if they are not the authors.
5) Line 342: Table 1: correct the °C in the specific heat.
Table 1: Why is the specific heat of the sisal fibres not determined?
6) Line 378: Figure (below Figure 11 and 12): this figure is not described and numbered. Is it a part of Figure 12?
7) Lines 386, 391, 392: correct °C.
8) Line 430: Figure 17: can you provide better resolution of the figure? Current is hard to see.
9) The conclusion: is clearly presented.
10) References: are correctly cited and written. Only year of the publication should be corrected to bold font at all references.
Author Response
Second Reviewer’s comment:
Article structure is prepared according to journal Polymers and author instructions.
The topic is in the scope of the journal Polymers. Article presents interesting topic about theoretical and experimental study based on the fibre porosity and heat conductivity of reinforced such as sisal, glass fibres composite materials.Here are my comments:
- Abstract: Line 17: authors write that the experimental studies were conducted mainly on sisal/glass fibre epoxy composites. Aren’t in combination with gypsum instead of epoxy?
Done
2) Introduction provides sufficient background and includes all relevant references. The heat conductivity of polymers and composites is written in detail and clearly presented.
3) The aim and the goals of the research are clearly presented.
4) Lines 262-332: Chapter 2.2. Numerical Modelling if Cylindrical Coordinates, authors wrote an equations, which should be also cited, if they are not the authors.
Done
5) Line 342: Table 1: correct the °C in the specific heat.
Done
Table 1: Why is the specific heat of the sisal fibres not determined?
Its value is variable and depends on various agricultural and environmental factors
6) Line 378: Figure (below Figure 11 and 12): this figure is not described and numbered. Is it a part of Figure 12?
Yes, it is a part of figure 12
7) Lines 386, 391, 392: correct °C.
Done
8) Line 430: Figure 17: can you provide better resolution of the figure? Current is hard to see.
We Tried the Best
9) The conclusion: is clearly presented.
10) References: are correctly cited and written. Only year of the publication should be corrected to bold font at all references.
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author
I have reviewed Theoretical study of the effect of fiber porosity on the heat conductivity of reinforced gypsum composite material.
It cannot be peer-reviewed because there are too many unreadable parts in the figure or formula.
It should be created with the reviewers in mind.
Therefore, it will be rejected.
Author Response
Authors:
We have made changes to the paper
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very interesting study on using ANSYS for the construction of a theoretical model of fiber-reinforced composites.
The manuscript needs a lot of improvements before publication.
In the Title, you mentioned theoretical study, but in the manuscript, you mentioned experimental results a few times. Are these experimental measurements yours, please? if yes you should add the proper materials and methods part about these measurements.
The Abstract should be completely revised, as it does not follow the manuscript and main findings.
The Introduction: Please revise this part, and add more proper recent references to your statements.
Lines 56-65: Parts like this are not necessary, this information is well known. Please check also another part of the manuscript.
Lines 83-85: This is not completely true, please revise this statement.
Parts about thermal conductivity should be revised, there is plenty of published review papers in this area, also in the area of modeling thermal properties in fiber reinforced composites.
Lines 176-193: Please do not explain as this is well known.
Please add also a discussion of the statistical significance of the results.
Please add limitations of your research, implications for further study, and the novelty of your research.
Author Response
We have replied the comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author
I have rejected this submitted paper once, so I will not change my opinion.
Author Response
Thanks
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript was significantly improved.
One more suggestion:
Lines 149-155: Authors gavae an insight into renewable building materials. You shoud mention also other alternative insulation materials. Current trends can be characterized as trends of increasing quality requirements for structures connected to a growing awareness towards using materials with less environmental impct, please check some recent publications
10.1016/j.susmat/2015.05.002, 10.3390/polym13142287, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.033
and many others.
Author Response
Good Suggestion. we have added more discussion with references.
"Actually, there are current trends that can be characterized as trends of increasing quality requirements for structures connected to growing awareness towards using materials with less environmental impact such as larch bark [32] and recycling residues of agricultural production [33,34]."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
