A Cost Model for 3D Woven Preforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Remove redundancy - author has repeated 3DOW and 2D structure comparison quite a bit. It can be stated once in the introduction along with a figure that shows the flow chart of 3D woven preform manufacturing as compared to 2D for better explanation and understanding for the readers.
2. Paper is very lengthy. This can be addressed by removing redundancy.
3. There are many 2D techniques. Which one the author is using for comparison? Need to explicitly mention in the abstract and introduction.

Author Response

1.0 Remove redundancy - author has repeated 3DOW and 2D structure comparison quite a bit. It can be stated once in the introduction along with a figure that shows the flow chart of 3D woven preform manufacturing as compared to 2D for better explanation and understanding for the readers.

Table 1 was inserted comparing 3D with a 2D woven preform of non-crimp 0, 90 structure. In the first draft, 2D was only mentioned in the Introduction, not in the remainder of the document. 

2.0 Paper is very lengthy. This can be addressed by removing redundancy.

I have shortened references to 3D preforms in the text. Is this what the reviewer means?

3.0 There are many 2D techniques. Which one the author is using for comparison? Need to explicitly mention in the abstract and introduction.

A reference to 2D preforms has been inserted in the Abstract, while a 2D preform of non-crimp 0, 90 structure has been mentioned in the Introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose in this manuscript a very interesting study on the definition and application to 3D Woven preforms of a Technical Cost Model (TCM). I suggest to accept this paper for publication after minor revisions as detailed below:

In Introduction (lines 43-44), concerning 3D-Warp interlock preforms, some works of F. Boussu (for example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.07.013) can be cited.

To my opinion the sub-section 1.1.1 could be reduced, for example, remove part between lines 233-256.

This paper is proposed for Journal of Composite Science which is not a Textile Journal. I think that the sub-section 1.1.3 could be detailed for example with pictures  of looms (weavebird and Jacquard) and explanations on different steps concerned for the Cost Model ( Winding, for example)

some details:

The link in the first ref. doesn't work

Material used for the experimental (glass fiber) could be given in the sub-section 2.2

Author Response

1.0 In Introduction (lines 43-44), concerning 3D-Warp interlock preforms, some works of F. Boussu (for example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.07.013) can be cited.

F. Boussu reference Composites Part B, Vol 81, November 2015, pages 171-188 included in Introduction.

2.0 To my opinion the sub-section 1.1.1 could be reduced, for example, remove part between lines 233-256.

Lines between 233 and 256 have been removed

3.0 This paper is proposed for Journal of Composite Science which is not a Textile Journal. I think that the sub-section 1.1.3 could be detailed for example with pictures  of looms (weavebird and Jacquard) and explanations on different steps concerned for the Cost Model ( Winding, for example)

Explanations for preform set-up and weave on the Jacquard and Weavebird looms have been included in sub-section 1.1.3.

4.0 The link in the first ref. doesn't work

Link should be www.visiongain.com, not "www.visongain.com". Corrected in References. The link can now be accessed.

5.0 Material used for the experimental (glass fiber) could be given in the sub-section 2.2

Fiber material included in subsection 2.2, Tables 2 and 3, for each preform.