Study on Suppression of Transverse Mechanical Coupling of Rectangular Double-Laminated Bending Vibration Elements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors showed improved vibration displacement in double laminated piezoelectric elements. The results and approach are quite interesting for future research, which is why I would recommend the publication. Nevertheless, I would also recommend changing/adding the following points:

1.      In general, I was wondering if it would be possible to estimate the error for the simulated values. If so, error bars should be added to each of the figures. This would provide a better judgement for the reader about the presented trends for each auf the measured values.

2.      On page 5 line 152/153: I would agree that a rapid increase is visible in the case of vibration displacement, however, I don't think that is the case for the resonance frequency. I think it just seems that way since there is a jump in volume fraction from 50 to about 70. So I would recommend changing the wording here.

3.      As much as I like the work, I would disagree with the point of improved sensitivity. I agree that the displacement was improved, however, non-piezoelectric material was used to create the composite structure. As such, I would assume the piezoelectric properties decreased, which would decrease the sensitivity. As a result, we do not actually know how the sensitivity changes. Therefore, I would be careful with statements such as in line 275 on page 9: “…also improves their emission sensitivity… ”. The authors should change these kind of statements throughout the text. Another option could be to cite work with similar composites that showed the changes to the piezoelectric properties.

Author Response

Please see Attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewed article concerns suppression of transverse mechanical coupling of rectangular double laminated bending vibration elements and is write in accordance with generally accepted standards of the scientific works. After careful reading of the submitted text there are some substantive remarks that should be taken into consideration by the Authors to improve reviewed text.

1.      The abstract should be more precise avoiding terms like “lower” or “larger” and provide specific relative and absolute values indicating the observed changes.

2.      The novelty of given approach should be emphasized in introduction.

3.      Presented study widely covers defined scientific problem and with simulation and experimental investigations provides proper background for given conclusions, however deeper scientific consideration of obtained results referred to the basic phenomena in analyzed processes should be given.

4.      In the discussion section should be provide more references to already known results from literature.

5.      The strengths and limitations of the obtained results and applied methods should be clearly described.

6.      I suggest providing the main conclusions as numbered sentences and refer to specific values (results of analysis) as well as basic phenomena that cause described results.

7.      The conclusion should be improved in term of the new knowledge gained during analysis, which should be concise with the journal scope.

8.      Text of scientific rapports should be writing impersonal.

 

Author Response

Please see Attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have  revised their manuscript in accordance to the reviewers' comments.