Numerical Study on Surface Reconstruction and Roughness of Magnetorheological Elastomers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents a method to compute the deformation of the surface of the MRE. In this method, the authors use the Gaussian wave convolution method to create random surfaces.
The authors need to justify the novelty of the current work in a more precise way. Questions mentioned in the following need to be considered in the resubmission:
1. What is the difference between the current method and the previous methods?
2. Why the current method? Is there any comparison to other methods (like FEM, etc) in the literature, to show the robustness and accuracy of the proposed method?
3. The numerical session only includes two test cases. Are they enough to justify the proposed method? A more detailed discussion is needed to explain the results.
4. The conclusion session is too simple. Limitations, as well as future work directions, need to be addressed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s), the manuscript titled ‘Simulation of the deformation of a three-dimensional rough surface for magnetorheological elastomers’, Manuscript ID: computation-2053310, has some strong weaknesses that must be significantly improved before any further actions in the processing, if allowed by the Editor.
Please refer to the comments below:
1. It is suggested to add some additional Keywords, especially for the modelling and deformations, of the surface data.
2. From the ‘Introduction’ section, the motivation is clear, the whole section is well-written, nevertheless, the aim of this work is not received from the lack of knowledge in the current state. It is suggested to put a more critical review which, respectively, would present motivation and research requirements more straightforwardly.
3. According to the methodology described in section 2.3., especially, by Flowchart 1 (Figure 3) is there any validation of the surface generation process?
4. In fact, both Flowcharts, 1 and 2, presented in Figures 3 and 4, respectively, could be presented as one., giving a more direct review of the procedure works.
5. There are many variables presented in the manuscript's body text, respectively, an additional section (e.g. Abbreviations and/or shortcuts) would be required. In its current form, the reader, even the regular, is lost.
6. Is equation (3) newly proposed by the Author(s)? If not, must be referenced.
7. From the whole section 3 (Results and Discussion), it looks like one data generation was used. When the repeatability was not provided (presented), the usage of the proposal is lost.
8. It feels like the validation is lost or, at least, falsely (non-appropriately) presented. It is difficult to follow what is the Author(s) trying to convey with the algorithm verification.
9. The height (Z-axis) of data presented in Figures 6 and 7 should be equal, not similar.
10. The ‘Conclusions’ section is extremely poor. Firstly, should present one, the main purpose resilverd. Secondly, should be divided into separate, numbered gaps. Finally, should give some significant responses on the motivation proposed.
Generally, the proposed manuscript title is interesting but, respectively, must be improved significantly which includes many weaknesses.
Some issues make understanding the paper difficult and the reader extremely confused.
The nightmare comes with the ‘Conclusion’ which is very poor.
Therefore, the manuscript should be improved in a required manner before any further processing for publication in a quality journal as the Computation is, if allowed.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author addressed the problems indicated by the reviewer. The manuscript now is in a good shape for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author(s), the manuscript ‘Simulation of the deformation of a three-dimensional rough surface for magnetorheological elastomers’, Manuscript ID: computation-2053310723, has been improved significantly so, respectively, can be further processed by the Computation journal.
Firstly, the manuscript has many weaknesses, respectively, many issues were raised, nevertheless, currently, it was improved in the required manner. The reviewer is very impressed by so suitable modifications provided.
Thank you for your both full and detailed responses that, in their current form, were addressed properly and make the manuscript suitable for publication in a quality journal as the Computation is.
From all of the above, I recommend the manuscript (Manuscript ID: computation-2053310723) to be published in the Computation journal.
