Vibration Reduction of a Timoshenko Beam with Multiple Parallel Nonlinear Energy Sinks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My impression is overall a very good paper.
I wanted to see the process how the optimals were improved.
Do you have an application idea to help actual design by this paper's achievement?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
See the comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewed manuscript, entitled ‘Vibration reduction of a Timoshenko beam with multiple parallel nonlinear energy sinks’ is dedicated to the verification of possible vibration reduction performances of multiple parallel nonlinear energy sinks attached on a short beam based on the Timoshenko beam theory, in terms of their optimal location and quantity.
The Reviewer finds the scope of the manuscript novel and significant. The literature study seems to be proper, exhaustive and complete. The presented theoretical background is concise, only the main and necessary formulas are presented. The performed numerical tests are intriguing, and the results are of importance. The influence of the energy sinks location and quantity are interesting, well-presented, and adequately described. The outline of the research is clear and the presented conclusions seem to be proper and justified.
The quality of the English language used is satisfactory throughout the text only minor errors and flaws are present, easily correctible during the revision process.
However, some issues are to be discussed.
1) Concerning the element analyzed – this is a simple supported beam, the simplest of any possible elements. Numerous studies are devoted to other types of beams and elements with higher dimensions, they are mentioned in the references. Can you comment if your proposed genetic algorithm can be applied to plates and shells (mostly in terms of time consumption and convergence of results).
2) Concerning the results – if the beam itself has different dimensions, e.g. L/H >10 or L/H >20 (as L/H = 5 in the paper), or L/H < 3 (a plate-beam), will the produced results and conclusions be different? Please add some text commenting the remark.
In summary, in the opinion of the Reviewer, the publication of the article should be recommended. A minor review of the paper is only suggested, to reflect slight modifications of syntax and grammar, alongside the answers to the Reviewers’ postulates.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
