The Rapid Detection Technology of Lamb Wave for Microcracks in Thin-Walled Tubes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted paper looks rather like very well prepared engineering report presenting developed method for acessing the quality of steel tube on production line. 

First of all the lamba waves is well known and their usage can be deeply published - they are used for finding different type of defect in composite materials including finding defect made by water or oil. So to improve and resubmit the paper it suggested to:

- present in introduction the state of art 

- clearly present the contribution

- give same recipe for lamba wave usage in cylindrical shape showing difficulties and methods of solution

- writing the conclusion explain some general rules or phenomena which you found / observed or proposed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

        Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Rapid Detection Technology of Lamb Wave for Microcracks in Thin-walled Tubes

Shunmin Yang, Mingquan Wang  and Lu Yang

The article concerns the use of Lamb wave haracteristics of plate with equal thicknes for detection of micro-cracks in forged thin-walled tubes. Theoretical considerations have been experimentally verified, and the method has been "calibrated" using specially prepared tubes with artifisial defects. Based on these results, an industrial stand was built for 100% product inspection during production.

The subject of the article fully meets the requirements of the magazine.  After careful analysis, I noticed a number of faults that in my opinion need improvement.

Line 97-98:  it is necessary to explain in relation to which assessment method the given results were referred.

Fig. 1: dimensions are poorly visible.

Line 101: there is no information about the method of "artificial defects" manufacturing.

Line 176-178: I would suggest deleting these lines because information has already been provided on lines 107-108

Line 196: descriptions incomprehensible to the reader. The solution to this situation would be to change the order of the subsections. I would suggest to put "3.2. Testing Equipment " before " 3.1. Multichannel Detection Method”.

Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 - hardly visible markings

Line 264-265: equation 10 / 1.72 = 5.81 requires explanation and the introduction of units.

Line 266: equation 12 / 1.72 = 6.98 requires explanation and the introduction of units.

Line 280: Again there is "Figure 7". It needs adjustment (a) overlaps with (b).

Line 287: Figure 8 does not exist.

Line 300-301: it is necessary to explain in relation to which assessment method the given results have been referred to - only if not explained in 97-98.

Line 303-306: It seems that technical information appearing here for the first time can be omitted without sacrificing the quality of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

        Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After revision I do not see any further thinks to improve. In this version the paper can be published