Surface Damage in Woven Carbon Composite Panels under Orthogonal and Inclined High-Velocity Impacts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes the surface damages on carbon composite panels of high velocity impact. The authors present a thermographic technique accompanied by optical observations for the evaluation of surface damages on composites with and without kevlar fiber, and studying the effects of shape, energy and angle of impact. The objectives are multiple and as interesting as the exposure is not clear and the objectives and results are not clearly exposed. 

Suggestions for authors:

1. The novelty and the objective of the work should be more clearly indicated in the introduction.

2. Line 180 is not completed.

3. Materials and methods. Areal weight (g/m^2) and cured ply thickness (mm) of the prepreg are missing. Autoclave heating and cooling rates are missing.

4. Please double check the Figures numbering. Ex. Figure 4 is cited as Figure 4 ....

5. Please better describe the captions of the figures.

6. The only surface analysis without information relating to the surface prior to the impact does not help the comparison (morphology, hardness ...). If the authors have any other data please add.

7. Please make the results clearer and more schematic, and explain how it is possible to group and compare the results that have different impact energies even if with the same impact shape or angle of incidence. Too many differences make comparisons difficult. A restructuring of the paper is suggested.

8. Please add a discussion on how the proposed study and results looks compared to others. Please indicate the progress of this kind of study comparing to similar studies.

9. Please control the formatting.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the very useful comments and feedback that will help to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow whilst the response to each comment are in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper titled: Surface damage in woven carbon composite panels under orthogonal and inclined high velocity impact represents the failure analysis of composite panels based on Woven carbon fibres with and without Kevlar, impacted at high velocity orthogonally and with an angle.  The results obtained in this work are very interesting for the reader of the composite journals. The manuscript is well organized and structured according the obtained results. I recommend minor optional revision before possible publication.

1)     The authors could present the novelty in the abstract and conclusion

2)     Line 133: what is the definition of CFRP? Please add the full name before the abbreviation

3)     The quality of the table 1 and 4 should be improved and please use the black color

4)     Where is 2.1 ? only 2.2, 2.3 etc… please revise it

5)     Where is 3.1.2 ? only 3.1.1, please revise it

6)     Please reduce the number of figures

7)     Conclusion should be shortened

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the very useful comments and feedback that will help to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow whilst the response to each comment are in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript submitted for review, titled "Surface damage in woven carbon composite panels under orthogonal and inclined high velocity impact" by Veronica Marchante Rodriguez, Marzio Grasso, Yifan Zhao, Haochen Liu, Kailun Deng, Andrew Roberts and Gareth Appleby-Thomas, deals with identifying surface damage to composite panels made of carbon and Kevlar fiber fabrics and cured epoxy resin resulting from high velocity impact at two different impact angles. The paper is interesting, contains all the necessary elements, has a supported structure and the content is adequate to the formulated title.

However, the Authors should highlight what the novelty and originality of their research is and what their results contribute to the field they represent.

In addition, the Authors should improve the manuscript according to the points outlined below:

1. The paper has the character of a research report and not a scientific paper, there is no real discussion of the results obtained and their reference to the results obtained by other authors, and there is no literature support when discussing the causes of the observed phenomena,

2. The names of all equipment used in the study should be given,

3. when giving information about materials and equipment, indicate the manufacturer, city and country,

4. Kevlar, epoxy resin and carbon fiber should be characterized,

5. Figure 2 needs to be described

The manuscript after corrections can be published in the Journal of Composites Science.

Best regards,

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the very useful comments and feedback that will help to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow whilst the response to each comment are in the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made all the changes and additions requested. The papaer now is more clear and adequate to be published. 

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript submitted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Now the revised manuscript can be accepted as is.

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the reviewer for the very useful comments that helped to improve the submitted manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The authors have not taken into account any of the reviewer's suggestions, and the answers are laconic, general and contribute nothing, still the drawings are not clear and lack descriptions, no real discussion, and no proper characterization of the materials tested, the names and details of the manufacturer of the equipment, the orginality and novelty of the work is not specified. In addition, the introduced quantity: density - has the wrong unit.

In my opinion, the article as presented is not suitable for publication in the journal: J. Compos. Sci.

Best regards,

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the extremely useful comments that helped to improve the manuscript submitted.

The Authors have provided an answer to every comments/concerns raised by the reviewer.

The authors do not believe that " the answers are laconic, general and contribute nothing" since we have considered every request and taken actions as believed appropriate by the authors. 

The name of the equipment used in the research are provided even if the Authors do not believe this is relevant and useful for the research.

The originality and novelty of the manuscript has been address rephrasing some of the sections and adding more details.

The density has the units of g/m2 (gsm) as conventionally used by manufacturers and everyone working with composites.

All the other points raised in the previous round have all been addressed.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The authors' response does not add any new aspects. The answers are again general and meaningless. The authors have not improved the manuscript satisfactorily. Density has a unit of kg/m3 another unit of density cannot be used in a serious peer-reviewed journal. Publishing a manuscript requires changing it and not believing that everything is correct. 

Best regards,