Nonlinear Vibration Analysis of a Beam with a Breathing Crack

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the reviewer’s opinion, this work features an important contribution towards understanding beams with cracks and theirs nonlinear behaviors. Overall, the paper is generally properly written, however there are some minor/major remarks, which if taken into account by the authors, may improve the quality of the manuscript:

The authors should enrich state of the art by reading the papers of Chondros et al. e.g. “Vibration of a beam with a breathing crack” Please prove and justify the assumption that the crack has no effects on the damping – it is a major issue of this publication and influence or even scatter further results. Please explain all parameters used in equations even if they seem obvious (time etc.). Also make sure that the letters are not used elsewhere e.g. in a matrix T. Please use technical drawing standards (such as ISO) to presents the beam – especially symmetry lines are missing (Fig. 4,6 etc.). Please justify 0.5 damping factor chosen in numerical analysis.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented in this manuscript could be helpful for developing robust structural monitoring strategies for structural components used in safety-critical engineering applications. The Author(s) must address the following comments:

I recommend the Author (s) to brake the long sentences for better understanding to the readers.

The manuscript should be thoroughly checked for typos and grammatical mistakes.

The Author (s) should

Remove unnecessary abbreviation from the Abstract.

The full form of FEM should be included in the Introduction.

The Author (s) must include appropriate citations against the Equations.

Figure 8.: cantilever beam.

Figure 11.: the graph should not touch the borderline.

Remove right and top ticks from all the Figures. Check and correct the figure captions.

In all the figures, the caption should be corrected as “Frequency (Hz)”.

A literature review should be further improved.

I suggest the Authors include the following citations related to recent damage detection strategies for engineering structures:

“Ultrasonic Lamb wave‐based debonding monitoring of advanced honeycomb sandwich composite structures”

“Nondestructive analysis of core-junction and joint-debond effects in advanced composite structure”

"Identification of breathing type disbonds in stiffened panels using non-linear lamb waves and built-in circular PWT array"

I recommend the Authors to use bullet points instead of numbers in the Conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your responses. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is now acceptable