Mechanical Performances of Phenolic Modified Epoxy Resins at Room and High Temperatures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some weaknesses through the manuscript which need improvement. Therefore, the submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:
1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but some details about the conducted tests must be added.
2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed research. Research questions, aims and objectives of the study must be clearly mentioned in introduction.
3- The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, authors must read and refer to the following papers: (a) composite manufacturing processes: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.110-116.1361 (b) composite joints: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.01.008 and other research works.
4- Since it is an experimental study, authors must add some real figures to show fabricated specimens, concept and some test conditions. In addition, images must be illustrated in a more scientific way.
5- Why this particular composite is considered for the investigation.
6- It would be nice if authors could add a numerical simulation to enrich the manuscript. Input parameters of numerical simulation must be summarized in a table.
7- Standard deviation in the presented curves (e.g., Fig. 3) must be added and discussed. Are the curves the averages? How average is calculated?
8- Compressive strength of examined specimens (at different temperature) must be determined. In this context, the main reference of each formula must be cited. Moreover, each parameters in equations must be introduced. Please double check this issue.
9- In its language layer, the manuscript should be considered for English language editing. There are sentences which have to be rewritten.
10- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but some details about the conducted tests must be added.
Response 1: More details about the conducted tests have been added in the abstract part.
Point 2: Authors must clarify necessity of the performed research. Research questions, aims and objectives of the study must be clearly mentioned in introduction.
Response 2: Supplemental instruction for the necessity of this research has been made in the last paragraph of introduction, and the sentences has been reformulated to make the purpose of this study more clearly.
Point 3: The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, authors must read and refer to the following papers: (a) composite manufacturing processes: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.110-116.1361 (b) composite joints: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.01.008 and other research works.
Response 3: More research works have been referred, including (a) composite manufacturing processes (https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.110-116.1361); and (b) composite joints: (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.01.008).
Point 4: Since it is an experimental study, authors must add some real figures to show fabricated specimens, concept and some test conditions. In addition, images must be illustrated in a more scientific way.
Response 4: Some real figures (Figures 2, 3 and 4) have been added or revised to show the fabricated specimens and testing instrument and some pictures has been adjusted.
Point 5: Why this particular composite is considered for the investigation.
Response 5: The composite used in this research is to investigate the influence of phenolic on the interlayer bond performances in laminated composite. The laminated composite is apt to form interlaminar crack under compression, which could indirectly reflect the interfacial properties.
Point 6: It would be nice if authors could add a numerical simulation to enrich the manuscript. Input parameters of numerical simulation must be summarized in a table.
Response 6: A numerical analysis (Figure 13) has been added to enrich the manuscript and the input parameters were also listed (Table 2).
Point 7: Standard deviation in the presented curves (e.g., Fig. 3) must be added and discussed. Are the curves the averages? How average is calculated?
Response 7: The curves presented in Figure 3 is representative curves. The standard deviation was added in Figure 6 and Figure 10.
Point 8: Compressive strength of examined specimens (at different temperature) must be determined. In this context, the main reference of each formula must be cited. Moreover, each parameter in equations must be introduced. Please double check this issue.
Response 8: For epoxy resin at 20℃ and 80℃, only the first peak stresses were listed. After the first peak stress, the curve experienced a yield stage which was not the key point of this research, because the specimen was considered failed after the first peak stress.
For epoxy resin at 150℃, the first peak stress was the compressive strength.
For epoxy based laminated composite, the first peak stress was also the compressive strength.
Point 9: In its language layer, the manuscript should be considered for English language editing. There are sentences which have to be rewritten.
Response 9: The English language in this manuscript has been carefully checked and rewritten.
Point 10: The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.
Response 10: The conclusion has been reformulated. The references have been updated. The changes were marked in the revised version.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the article: Mechanical Performances of Phenolic Modified Epoxy Resins at Room and High Temperatures
The topic of this research and output might be useful for the Coatings readers. There are many shortcomings at work. The indicated additions would significantly improve the scientific level of the work. The conducted work is worth to publish, however in order to improve the manuscript the following suggestions should be considered.
Abstract:
Line 9: …composite…. - What kind? Please specify.
Line 25: Please remove °C.
Introduction
There are many colloquialisms, colloquial terms in the work.
Line 29: …excellent…- This is not a scientific term. Please correct.
Line 35 - 36: …produced a chemical reaction…- produced or performed?
- How other scientists studied the mechanical properties of resins. Please expand on this part in the Introduction.
Materials and Method
Specify the description of the devices, i.e. model, manufacturer, city, country.
Lines 62 - 65: This should be in the Introduction section and should be more elaborate.
Line 80: How many samples of resin was prepared? Results and Discussion
Lines 117 - 119: Please delete this part.
- There are no references to literature data in this part. Please complete.
- Has a statistical analysis of the test results been carried out? Please complete.
- There are no e.g. standard deviations in the figures, no statistical analyzes. This determines the correct formulation of conclusions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Abstract:
Line 9: …composite…. - What kind? Please specify.
Line 25: Please remove °C.
Response 1: The type of composite has been specified in the abstract. The °C has been removed.
Point 2: Introduction
There are many colloquialisms, colloquial terms in the work.
Line 29: …excellent…- This is not a scientific term. Please correct.
Line 35 - 36: …produced a chemical reaction…- produced or performed?
How other scientists studied the mechanical properties of resins. Please expand on this part in the Introduction.
Response 2: The term ‘excellent’ has been corrected and the English language has been carefully checked and revised. Some researches on the mechanical properties of resins have been added in the introduction.
Point 3: Materials and Method
Specify the description of the devices, i.e. model, manufacturer, city, country.
Lines 62 - 65: This should be in the Introduction section and should be more elaborate.
Line 80: How many samples of resin was prepared? Results and Discussion
Lines 117 - 119: Please delete this part.
Response 3: The description of devices has been specified.
The part (Lines 62 - 65) has been moved to the introduction and the introduction section has been enriched.
The test was repeated three times at each condition.
The part (Lines 117 - 119) has been deleted.
Point 4: There are no references to literature data in this part. Please complete.
Response 4: This manuscript is to study the influence of phenolic on epoxy resin, and the analysis was conducted through a comparative study among the test results, and the pure epoxy resin was the reference sample. In addition, different types of epoxy resin own different mechanical properties. So the literature data was not referred in this study.
Point 5: Has a statistical analysis of the test results been carried out? Please complete.
There are no e.g. standard deviations in the figures, no statistical analyzes. This determines the correct formulation of conclusions.
Response 5: A statistical analysis has been completed and the standard deviations have added in Figure 6 and Figure 10.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors reported phenolic modified epoxy-based plain woven laminated composites (PWLCs) and presented their mechanical properties. however, there are still many unclear issues that need clarification and update. Please find below some comments /suggestions which may help to improve the manuscript quality:
- The authors mentioned vaguely the aim of the study but no statement on the contribution to the field and in what way the paper will bring its own novelty. The authors should clearly state the purpose of the study and the innovative aspects should be highlighted.
- Materials and methods section. The authors reported this section but no mention on which materials were used, and their physical chemical characteristics and source was included. The authors should reformulate this part and to include a sub-section dedicated to the raw materials they have used for the study.
- The authors describe the preparatory steps vaguely; a subsection as preparation methods should be included where the authors should describe step by step their procedure in such way that the experiments can be reproducible. A similar comment about the characterization methods should be organized as well.
- In the results and discussion section. The authors forgot a phrase from guidelines as the first paragraph. The authors are requested to reformulate the section in the way to be clearly understood all the characteristics and properties of the newly prepared materials. Each method presented should be clearly described within the section 2 and the results clearly presented in Section 3. Additionally, the purpose of each method for the outcome should be mentioned.
- The authors presented the amplitude of the variation but no clear statement on the purpose of this analysis and the meaning of the term was mentioned; the authors are requested to provide explanations on what the amplitude of the variation means and what information provides.
- The phrase “Due to the insensitivity of carbon fibers to temperature, the compressive results of 155 PWLCs mainly reflected the phenolic modified epoxy resin’s mechanical performances 156 which included interfacial bonding properties” was not clear enough; the authors are requested to reformulate to be clearly understood.
- Conclusion part did not reveal if the expected outcome was achieved or not and which system is likely or not; the authors are requested to reformulate accordingly.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The authors mentioned vaguely the aim of the study but no statement on the contribution to the field and in what way the paper will bring its own novelty. The authors should clearly state the purpose of the study and the innovative aspects should be highlighted.
Response 1: The last paragraph has been revised to further highlight the purpose and innovative aspects of the study.
Point 2: Materials and methods section. The authors reported this section but no mention on which materials were used, and their physical chemical characteristics and source was included. The authors should reformulate this part and to include a sub-section dedicated to the raw materials they have used for the study.
Response 2: More information of raw materials has been added. This has been reformulated by inserting the sub-sections.
Point 3: The authors describe the preparatory steps vaguely; a subsection as preparation methods should be included where the authors should describe step by step their procedure in such way that the experiments can be reproducible. A similar comment about the characterization methods should be organized as well.
Response 3: The preparation and characterization methods have been reorganized by inserting the sub-sections.
Point 4: In the results and discussion section. The authors forgot a phrase from guidelines as the first paragraph. The authors are requested to reformulate the section in the way to be clearly understood all the characteristics and properties of the newly prepared materials. Each method presented should be clearly described within the section 2 and the results clearly presented in section 3. Additionally, the purpose of each method for the outcome should be mentioned.
Response 4: Methods in section 2 and results in section 3 have been reformulated. The purpose of each method has been added.
Point 5: The authors presented the amplitude of the variation but no clear statement on the purpose of this analysis and the meaning of the term was mentioned; the authors are requested to provide explanations on what the amplitude of the variation means and what information provides.
Response 5: Explanation on the amplitude of the variation has been added.
Point 6: The phrase “Due to the insensitivity of carbon fibers to temperature, the compressive results of 155 PWLCs mainly reflected the phenolic modified epoxy resin’s mechanical performances 156 which included interfacial bonding properties” was not clear enough; the authors are requested to reformulate to be clearly understood.
Response 6: The sentence has been reformulated.
Point 7: Conclusion part did not reveal if the expected outcome was achieved or not and which system is likely or not; the authors are requested to reformulate accordingly.
Response 7: The conclusion part has been reformulated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. In my opinion, the current version can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
There are large gaps in the work in terms of editing.
The authors write that they conducted a statistical analysis of the research results - "A statistical analysis has been completed". I cannot find information in the text on how, with what statistical tests?
Author Response
Point 1: There are large gaps in the work in terms of editing.
Response 1: The large gaps have been adjusted.
Point 2: The authors write that they conducted a statistical analysis of the research results - "A statistical analysis has been completed". I cannot find information in the text on how, with what statistical tests?
Response 2: The standard deviation was used for the statistical analysis, and the computational formula has been added in section 2.5 (Line 143).
Reviewer 3 Report
the authors answered to the addressed queries; however, the authors are continuously using "phenolic" for example:
"Phenolic contains aldehyde groups and the aldehyde groups can react with epoxy groups"
" So in this article, the phenolic was employed to modify..."
"to investigate the influences of phenolic on the mechanical properties", etc.
The word phenolic being used very often and in various situations raised some question whether is used correctly or not and what exactly the authors referred at.
The authors are requested to double check and clarify to avoid misunderstandings.
Thank you.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors answered to the addressed queries; however, the authors are continuously using "phenolic" for example:
"Phenolic contains aldehyde groups and the aldehyde groups can react with epoxy groups"
" So in this article, the phenolic was employed to modify..."
"to investigate the influences of phenolic on the mechanical properties", etc.
The word phenolic being used very often and in various situations raised some question whether is used correctly or not and what exactly the authors referred at.
The authors are requested to double check and clarify to avoid misunderstandings.
Response 1: The word phenolic in this article means a fluid phenolic resin, and an explanation (Line 69) has been added in the last paragraph of the introduction.
