Research on Delamination Damage Quantification Detection of CFRP Bending Plate Based on Lamb Wave Mode Control
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this article, the one-dimensional linear comb transducer was employed to enhance the single Lamb wave mode in the CFRP plate. The Lamb wave signals with varying delamination damage sizes were acquired using simulation and experimental methods. The correlation expression between the delamination damage size and signal difference coefficient was established with the fitting of simulation data. The delamination damage in CFRP bending plate specimens was quantified using correlation expression. The research results of this article are the reference for the detection of CFRP delamination damage.
#1: Recheck for English grammar in the Abstract and the first paragraph of the Introduction.
#2: ‘At the same time, considering that the amplitude of the time-delay superimposed voltage signal of the S0 mode was nearly 100 times lower than that of the A0 mode, the signal-to-noise ratio of the S0 mode Lamb wave signal excited in the experiment may be small.’
The description of this sentence is not rigorous enough. It cannot be seen from the diagram that the amplitude of the S0 mode is nearly 100 times lower than that of the A0 mode. Please rephrase this section.
#3: What is the abbreviation for CTD in Figure 25? The text in the manuscript does not mention CDT.
#4: The review of delamination damage quantification detection methods in the manuscript is insufficient, and it is recommended that the author further elaborate.
#5: Section 3.3 'Selection of mesh element size' is of little significance to this manuscript, and it is recommended to delete it.
#6: In the fitting expression (6), x represents the delamination damage size, and y represents the SDC value of the delamination damage signal. This is inconvenient for the quantification of delamination damage. Can the author represent x as the SDC value of the delamination damage signal and y as the delamination damage size?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageRecheck for English grammar in the Abstract and the first paragraph of the Introduction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this study, the authors investigate the use of Lamb waves to quantify delamination damage in a Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) bending plate. Specifically, they use the Signal Difference Coefficient (SDC) to evaluate the sensitivity of A0 and S0 mode Lamb waves to detect delamination.
Despite the topic being of interest for the Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) community, it is not clear which is the advancement of this paper with the current state of the art. The introduction section of the manuscript analyzes the literature background but does not properly highlight the novelty of this research.
There are many possible approaches to detect damage using Lamb waves such as pitch-catch configuration, non-linear Lamb waves, and time reversal method to name a few. The authors should mention these approaches explaining how their methodology compares with these methods and why they think this is the best approach to tackle the problem.
Moreover, the topic is not properly contextualized within the SHM framework and is not clear how this setup might operate in real operational conditions. In addition, the ability to detect damage should be quantified in terms of Probability of Detection (POD) curves. This statistical tool, which has been the subject of research in both Non-Destructive Evaluation (NDE) and SHM, is essential to quantify properly the reliability of the proposed setup.
Some other remarks are listed below:
· The selection of 160 kHz seems to excite also the S1 mode, and not only the A0 and S0 modes.
· In Figure 21 it is suggested to plot both simulation results (A0 and S0) on the same graph to highlight at a glance the higher sensitivity of the A0 mode with respect to the S0 mode for this type of damage.
· In the experimental setup description, the true delamination areas should be clearly shown through some NDE methods.
· The delamination shape might cause differences in the final damage detection capability and, similarly, damage location is also crucial in Lamb waves problems and its effect should be at least discussed if not analyzed.
All these points should be discussed throughout the paper along with other typical SHM problems such as the possible change in environmental and operational conditions and sensor degradation. In general, the research results seem to be very application-dependent. The authors should explain how possible changes in the experimental setup (such as sensor locations or structure geometry) might affect the final output.
Finally, in the conclusion section would be appropriate to state the vision of the authors about the future trends of this research field and in particular of their research.
In conclusion, this reviewer does not see a clear advancement of the state of the art in the current manuscript. The authors should revise the manuscript in order to clarify the novel content of their research and provide a more detailed and rigorous description of the experimental methodology.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe fluency is not always optimal and the vocabulary is not particularly broad and varied. Nevertheless, the English level is sufficient and it is relatively easy to understand the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
I examined the article titled “Research on delamination damage quantification detection of CFRP bending plate based on Lamb wave mode control” in detail. I think there are serious English grammatical errors in general; When read from beginning to end, there are many errors in expression. Also, I have mentioned some points below regarding the content of the article, it can be reviewed again.
-It is sufficient to explain the framework of the study in the introduction and methods sections, but the selected parameters should be expressed more clearly. For example, how did you choose the configuration you analyzed in Figure.2? How does choosing different orientations in production affect your test results? Explaining this by referring to the literature is an important point and should be done.
-The graphs you presented in Figures 16-19 can be summarized. Additionally, the differences should be revealed more clearly. For example, what is the reason for the formation of a double wave in Figure.18b? What may be the reasons for the changes of the maximum point? As a result, graphs should be explained in clearer terms.
-One of the important points is Figure.29. The issues obtained or evaluated here are insufficient as is. I think this part is very important and should be reconsidered in detail. Delamination calculations are not completely clear.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageI think there are serious English grammatical errors, when read from beginning to end, there are many errors in expression. So, It should be check.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
