Internal Damage Analysis of Braided Composites Embedded in Carbon Nanotube Yarn

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 87 change weaving into brading

Author Response

 Thank you for reviewing my paper. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Internal damage analysis of braided composites embedded in carbon nanotube yarn"
In this study, Carbon nanotube yarn sensors were embedded in 3D braided composites in the form of arrays to detect the internal damage of specimens and study the internal damage monitoring of the 3D braided composites.
The authors have submited a scientifically flawless and solid work, I recommend it for publication as is.

I recommend citing prior scientific work:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622318305529

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-4991/9/3/471

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my paper.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript reports an embedment of carbon nanotube yarns for internal damage monitoring of three-dimensional (3D) composites. By considering a resistance signal matrix, the authors claim that structural health monitoring could be achieved with carbon nanotube yarn sensors for 3D composites. Although the approach and theoretical formalism in this manuscript could be invaluable for the broad readers of the journal, there are several critical problems and concerns, and are listed below.

・Define the abbreviation of CNT the first time appears in the text.

・In line 194, the authors state: “The damage in Specimen 3 was 1D linear damage with a length of 12.8 mm and a horizontal 52.3 degree”, but in Line 197 states “The damage in Specimen 3 was 1D linear damage with a length of 10.3 mm and a horizontal 46.7 degree”. Which one is correct?

・In line 199, the authors state: “Specimen 4 was a composite specimen with a small defect inside”, but such defects is not clearly seen in Figure 7. Could you provide the type of defect including the shape and size, perhaps with a clearer photograph and schematic illustration?

・Similarly, the damage in specimen 1 is not clearly visible in Figure 7.

・Are the calculated and actual coordinate data correct in Table 2? For instance, the calculated and actual coordinates for the damage source number 1 are written as (-3.0, 2.4) and (2.3, 2.5), respectively, but if the units are in millimeters, then these appears to be quite far.

・With respect to Line 241, the authors need to explain more on these factors since such factors could be coming from a serious flaw in the presented experimental design (damage monitoring strategy), analysis and interpretation.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my paper. I have revised it according to your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been revised with sufficient explanations and modifications for the most part. However, there are still a few points to be addressed/corrected. Please correct these points.

1) Define the abbreviation of PVA, CWCNT the first time appears in the text.

2) ”Damage”is misspelled in Figure 7.

3) While the Figure 7 was updated with labels, a scale bar should be added to it to further improve the readability.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my paper. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx