A New Technique for Determining the Shape of a Paper Sample in In-Plane Compression Test Using Image Sequence Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: applsci-2144125
Title: "A New Technique for Determining the Shape of a Paper Sample in In-Plane Compression Test Using Image Sequence Analysis"
The authors did a great job of analysing phenomena occurring during the measurement of the strength properties of paper in the conditions of compression of the tested samples with forces acting in the paper plane. This is a novel topic in the field. The reviewer recommends the paper for publication in the " Applsci " journal after making the following major modifications to bring it to the desired stage:
1. In abstract, it is preferable to add the most important obtained outcomes
2. The introduction is a bit weak, add more details about Image Sequence Analysis.
3. In order to make your research more attractive to readers and researchers, I suggest that you include a new section entitled "Research significance".
4. What does your study add to the subject area compared with other published material? Answer this question more clearly in the “Research significance” section.
5. To make it easier for researchers to track and know the steps of the procedures of the methodology followed in your study, I suggest including a schematic diagram of the procedures used.
6. What specific improvements should that future researchers consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
7. Recheck the sequence of Figs.
8. Some Figs. need to be reviewed in terms of quality, for example, Figs. 12 and 13.
9. Add a discussion section on comparison with previous studies.
10. The manuscript needs minor language revision.
11. Revise your conclusions in a way that is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and does it address the main question at hand?
12. It is preferable to add a section "Recommendations" to indicate the authors' recommendations for future researchers.
13. Update the list of references so that the paper is more comprehensive and also up-to-date with the latest studies in this area.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we thank You very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript "A New Technique for Determining the Shape of a Paper Sample in In-Plane Compression Test Using Image Sequence Analysis". Below are the answers to your questions.
- In abstract, it is preferable to add the most important obtained outcomes
Information about the usefulness of the developed technique in further research aimed at finding a method for determining the mechanism of paper destruction and the corresponding maximum force for destroying a paper sample with an acceptable error has been added.
- The introduction is a bit weak, add more details about Image Sequence Analysis.
A paragraph has been added describing the applications of image sequence analysis in strength tests and in the paper and printing industries.
- In order to make your research more attractive to readers and researchers, I suggest that you include a new section entitled "Research significance".
Instead of a new section, “Conclusions” have been extended with information on the importance of the developed measurement technique and the tests that can be performed with it.
- What does your study add to the subject area compared with other published material? Answer this question more clearly in the “Research significance” section.
A discussion on what the developed measurement technique brings to the subject area compared to other published materials is included in “Conclusions”.
- To make it easier for researchers to track and know the steps of the procedures of the methodology followed in your study, I suggest including a schematic diagram of the procedures used.
A new subsection "A sequence of operations included in the developed measurement technique" has been added, which contains a diagram of the measurement procedure.
- What specific improvements should that future researchers consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
Suggestions for improvements are included at the end of "Conclusions".
- Recheck the sequence of Figs.
The sequence of figures has been corrected.
- Some Figs. need to be reviewed in terms of quality, for example, 12 and 13.
Figures 12 and 13 are updated.
- Add a discussion section on comparison with previous studies.
A brief comparison with earlier research is provided in "Introduction".
- The manuscript needs minor language revision.
The manuscript was checked for linguistic correctness and style.
- Revise your conclusions in a way that is consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and does it address the main question at hand?
"Conclusions" have been modified. Reviewer's suggestions have been taken into account.
- It is preferable to add a section "Recommendations" to indicate the authors' recommendations for future researchers.
Further research plans of the authors are revealed in "Conclusions".
- Update the list of references so that the paper is more comprehensive and also up-to-date with the latest studies in this area.
The literature has been supplemented with several new, relevant items.
Thank You again for your valuable comments. We hope that the additions and corrections have been made in accordance with your suggestions and are satisfactory.
Kind regards
Manuscript authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Couple of comments -
1. Additional elaboration on how deflection arrow was measured for the verification performed in Fig 15. is needed. I am assuming the calculated is based on modelling with the chosen sinusoidal model.
2. Why was the verification only done at 4mm clamping length, can you provide additional verifications of measured vs calculated at different clamping lengths, at least 0.7mm and 2 mm?
3. Additional insight or recommendation on how this methodology could impact help with either prediction of crushing behavior or aid in mechanistic understanding of crushing and buckling mechanisms, are necessary in conclusion. Basically, more insight into what this methodology is adding compared to already existing test methods such as SCT testing etc.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we thank You very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript "A New Technique for Determining the Shape of a Paper Sample in In-Plane Compression Test Using Image Sequence Analysis". Below are the answers to your questions.
- Additional elaboration on how deflection arrow was measured for the verification performed in Fig 15. is needed. I am assuming the calculated is based on modelling with the chosen sinusoidal model.
The method of determining the deflection arrow is described in the section "Estimation of deformation parameters of the tested paper sample". A model of paper sample shortening as a function of its deflection is done by known formula.
- Why was the verification only done at 4mm clamping length, can you provide additional verifications of measured vs calculated at different clamping lengths, at least 0.7mm and 2 mm?
We have added verification based on 5mm clamping length. Modelling it for shorter lengths is not applicable due to large differences between the model and the actual shape of the sample subjected to crushing forces.
- Additional insight or recommendation on how this methodology could impact help with either prediction of crushing behavior or aid in mechanistic understanding of crushing and buckling mechanisms, are necessary in conclusion. Basically, more insight into what this methodology is adding compared to already existing test methods such as SCT testing etc.
A discussion on what the developed measurement technique brings to the subject area compared to other published materials is included in Conclusions.
Thank You again for your valuable comments. We hope that the additions and corrections have been made in accordance with your suggestions and are satisfactory.
Kind regards
Manuscript authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
the approach to the topic and the apparatus is novel and interesting. Overall, the paper is well written but I have some remarks which would in my opinion further increase readability and enable better understanding. The comments are as follows:
- please improve English in style
- give a bit more description to term which are not general knowledge, for example deflection arrow (p1, l22), image reduction (p3, l90), name the sources for times (p6, l152)
- presenting of results should be improved by setting y-axe scale in the same range (fig 11, 14, 16)
- improve discussion, for example p15, l315 you mention adopted model, but without reference to it
- you should consider to test more than one sample to investigate distance between holding clamps in accordance to the paragraph in the discussion where you mention theory of the thin walls
- please give more data about the disadvantages of the method in the conclusion
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we thank You very much for your valuable comments on our manuscript "A New Technique for Determining the Shape of a Paper Sample in In-Plane Compression Test Using Image Sequence Analysis". Below are the answers to your questions.
- please improve English in style
The manuscript was checked for linguistic correctness and style.
- give a bit more description to term which are not general knowledge, for example deflection arrow (p1, l22), image reduction (p3, l90), name the sources for times (p6, l152)
The term “deflection arrow” is defined in the section "Estimation of deformation parameters of the tested paper sample". Image “reduction” is replaced with “reducing the size”.
- presenting of results should be improved by setting y-axe scale in the same range (fig 11, 14, 16)
Using the same scale would make some graphs hard to see.
- improve discussion, for example p15, l315 you mention adopted model, but without reference to it.
The model was described by an equation and the source of the formula was given.
- you should consider to test more than one sample to investigate distance between holding clamps in accordance to the paragraph in the discussion where you mention theory of the thin walls
The tests were actually made on one paper, but for different clamping lengths. This made it possible to assess the compliance of the behavior of the paper with the theory of thin walls.
- please give more data about the disadvantages of the method in the conclusion
The conclusions were supplemented with a discussion of the weaknesses of the developed technique and the possibilities of its improvement.
Thank You again for your valuable comments. We hope that the additions and corrections have been made in accordance with your suggestions and are satisfactory.
Kind regards
Manuscript authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments from my side.
