Description of Mesoscale Static and Fatigue Analysis of 2D Woven Roving Plates with Convex Holes Subjected to Axial Tension

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In the paper “Description of mesoscale static and fatigue analysis of 2D woven roving plates with convex holes and subjected to axial tension” the static and fatigue analysis of plates with holes, made of 2D woven roving composites, is conducted. The manuscript presents the results of experiments on samples without holes and with cuts of various shapes, as well as calculations using the finite element method.

This paper needs a lot of editing to be clear. Firstly, author needs to highlight the novelty of his work compared to previous contributions from the literature. The new content should be clearly defined. In the present version, it is difficult to point out the original contribution of the presented research to the existing knowledge. Which part of the model is new? How is it related to the existing models? To what extent the results are better in comparison with the results of the existing approaches?

It is necessary to present in more detail the experimental design, what was asked and what was obtained. When solving a problem using the finite element method, it is necessary to present the boundary value problem, material parameters and justify the choice of the governing equation.

The English writing needs to be greatly improved and contains several typos, grammatical errors and punctuation errors (for example on page 8 in the third line from the bottom you need to replace “elastic-plastic bahaviour” with “elastic-plastic behavior”).

Author Response

This paper needs a lot of editing to be clear. Firstly, author needs to highlight the novelty of his work compared to previous contributions from the literature. The new content should be clearly defined. In the present version, it is difficult to point out the original contribution of the presented research to the existing knowledge. Which part of the model is new? How is it related to the existing models? To what extent the results are better in comparison with the results of the existing approaches?

The novelties of the paper are following:

- it is demonstrated that  the LFC behaviour of plates made of plain weave 2D  composites shows the similarities to elastic plastic deformations

- the description of static and fatigue damages of plate with a convex hole (plain weave 2D composites) can   be parametrized with the use of three values characterizing the area of the hole and the two lengths of the superellipses constituting the hole

 

It is necessary to present in more detail the experimental design, what was asked and what was obtained.

The experiments are carried out according to the design codes - Sections 2.1 and 2.2

 

When solving a problem using the finite element method, it is necessary to present the boundary value problem, material parameters and justify the choice of the governing equation.

 

The boundary value problem is presented in Fig. 11, and material properties in Table 1

The English writing needs to be greatly improved and contains several typos, grammatical errors and punctuation errors (for example on page 8 in the third line from the bottom you need to replace “elastic-plastic bahaviour” with “elastic-plastic behavior”).

 

I hope that the form of the English version will be corrected by editors.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author studied static and fatigue problem of plates with holes for 2D woven roving composites and compared results with experiments. 

1. The author applied a previous own-published finite element model for the static and fatigue simulation with references. However, important information should also be provided in this manuscript for readers to follow. For example, computational mesh domain, mesh size, schematic should be brief introduced. 

2. The novelty of this paper is not clear. The authors had already published the model, experiments and results before. The author should modify abstract, introduction, and conclusion to emphasize novelty of this paper. 

3. The conclusion should be rewritten to include short introduction of methods, models, solutions, and experiments instead of bullets of conclusion. The logic between each concluding remark is not clear and it is hard to follow.

Author Response

1. The author applied a previous own-published finite element model for the static and fatigue simulation with references. However, important information should also be provided in this manuscript for readers to follow. For example, computational mesh domain, mesh size, schematic should be brief introduced. 

For computations the FE package is used – Ref [35] NISA II – the accuracy is demonstrated in Figs 15, 21.

2. The novelty of this paper is not clear. The authors had already published the model, experiments and results before. The author should modify abstract, introduction, and conclusion to emphasize novelty of this paper. 

The abstract, introduction and conclusions were changed.

3. The conclusion should be rewritten to include short introduction of methods, models, solutions, and experiments instead of bullets of conclusion. The logic between each concluding remark is not clear and it is hard to follow.

The conclusions were changed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author for responding to my previous comments and questions.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did not change the manuscript much according to reviewer's comments.

1. For example, the author did not make any change to the abstract except for deleting some references. Adequate description of the method, results, and novelty should be introduced in the abstract and main manuscript for readers to follow even though more details are published elsewhere and cited here. 

 

2. The format of introduction (use bullets to introduce points) is clear but not formal. The introduction looks like a report instead of journal article. I suggest the author to rewrite the introduction section and use paragraph to explain ideas in more detail. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine for readers to follow.

Author Response

I have corrrected the abstract

I shortened and changed the introduction

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript according to reviewers' comments.