Geometrically Non-Linear Plane Elasticity Problem in the Area of an Angular Boundary Cut-Out

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author deals with problems of using numerical analytical methods in the research of structures, buildings, and constructions. The authors deal with the study of the stress-strain state of structures and constructions with a complex-shape boundary. For this purpose, she formulates geometric relationships between deformations and displacements in a curvilinear orthogonal coordinate. Next she derives the equilibrium equations in a curvilinear orthogonal coordinate system and formulates the plane elasticity problem in the area of domain boundary angular cut-out, taking into account the geometrical non-linearity.

 

The studied issue is beneficial from an engineering point of view, but I suggest major revisions to the present version of the paper:

The author should describe in detail how the formulated model was validated. Was it tested by computer simulations or experimentally?

1) The paper provides an extensive theoretical description of the studied problem. It can be difficult for readers to understand. That is why I would welcome a demonstration of a concrete, practical use of the proposed model in the publication.

2) In the References section, I am missing more links to current research papers dealing with the studied issue.

3) Next, the format of the symbols and equations used in the text should be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript.
The text has been revised. The English language has been improved by a certified translator of engineering texts.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents scientific interest on a analytical study of "Geometrically non-linear plane elasticity problem in the area of an angular boundary cut-out".   The original idea of the article is interesting and presents originality, but several changes and improvements are suggested, as follows.

- The format and content of keywords should be improved.

- In lines 45-46, approporiate references for the abbreviations, should be added.

- Most references are in russian, without being listed in a database available for academic readers, which makes hard to check and compare the used methods and results.  Please add/replace refs, in English to help international readers.

- Fig. 1 is too small to be read.

- the format of equations is not aligned with the text, so it makes the text "confusing".

- A lot of equations are presented, not being validated, and without a clear target.  What is the purpose of all these equations? 

- Please note, that it is not clear which equations come from other works, and which are novel from the current paper.

- In the results, some plots should be added to help readers understand the target, usage and method of all these equations.

- Have you compared your methods with any other work?

- The discussion section is too poor. 

- The conslusions should be totally reformed to present real comparative conclusions and remarks.  The purpose of the whole paper is rather confused.  The text lacks in organization and presentation, although the original idea presents novelty. 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The whole text should be checked for grammar, syntax and the meaning of sentences. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript.
The text has been revised. The English language has been improved by a certified translator of engineering texts.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Geometrically non-linear plane elasticity problem in the area of an angular boundary cut-out” aims at formulating the plane elasticity problem in the area of domain boundary angular cut-out taking into account the geometrical non-linearity and physical linearity under the action of forced deformations.

COMMENTS

The Boundary Element Method (BEM) should be mentioned in line 46.

Also, some References of the BEM should be added since BEM is ideal for such problems.

The article is not strong enough to be published.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript.
The text has been revised. The English language has been improved by a certified translator of engineering texts.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is interesting and the revised paper has been improved significantly, it is suggested to use a clear image and descriptions in Fig.1.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author has modified the English of the paper, but improvements can be made to make it more comprehensible.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript.
The text has been revised. The English language has been improved by a certified translator of engineering texts.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors developed a formula to solve the plane elasticity problem in the area of domain boundary angular cut-out. The geometrical non-linearity and physical linearity are taken into consideration.  The followings are my major concerns:

1.     The authors should state clearly about the issues in the current practice, the purpose of the study, and the advantages/possible applications of taking into account the second-order displacement.

2.     The authors are trying to develop a new formula by considering the second-order displacement. The development procedure is pretty typical, so what are the innovations?

3.     The formula development in the paper lacks validation. What are the differences in accuracy between the proposed formula and traditional method/experimental testing?

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript.
The text has been revised. The English language has been improved by a certified translator of engineering texts.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made many corrections to the manuscript. However, I still propose a revision of its current version:

1. I recommend adding to the text more references to current foreign works related to the studied issue, i.e., articles published in international scientific journals, foreign books, etc.

2. The format of the manuscript should be strictly followed according to the Guidelines for authors recommended by the editor of the MDPI Axioms journal. Used symbols should be aligned on a line with the surrounding text. Equation numbering should be aligned to the right margin of the page, etc.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript. I am sending my responses to your comments.

The text of the manuscript has been slightly revised. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has improved the text.  However, the novelty of this work is still not obvious.  Also, the Boundary Element Method is not mentioned, although applying to the interest field of this paper.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is improved.  

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript. I am sending my responses to your comments.

The text of the manuscript has been slightly revised. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper has been significantly improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

 

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript. I am sending my responses to your comments.

The text of the manuscript has been slightly revised. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made significant improvements to the paper. However, the innovation of the proposed method is still not clearly stated. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer of Axioms-2507192,

Thank you for your careful reading of my manuscript. I am sending my responses to your comments.

The text of the manuscript has been slightly revised. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
L. Frishter

Author Response File: Author Response.docx