Vibro-Acoustic Modelling of Aeronautical Panels Reinforced by Unconventional Stiffeners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presents an extensive study of the vibro-acoustic behavior of flat panels reinforced with different conventional stiffeners and also so called unconventional. The main important output of the paper is the described methodology that combined analytical and numerical modelling techniques. 

How did you explain the differences in vibro-acoustic response of the panel with unconventional stiffeners related those with conventional ones. Why the methodology is not accurate in dealing with unconventional stiffeners? Please give more scientific explanations to this aspect.

There are some experimental studies available for the validation of the described models and methodologies? 

How you can validate the models and the obtained results by independent methods?  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This work focuses its emphasis on the characterization the vibro-acoustic behaviour of rectangular flat panels reinforced by "unconventional" stiffeners, as well as on the identification of numerical models able to accurately reproduce the dynamics of the examined structures. Totally speaking, this paper is well written and the work presented is somewhat valuable in practice, while at the same time, this paper still need to be minor revised to ensure acceptance for publication, according to the following comments. 

1. Each equation should give a provenance if it is not derived by author themselves but comes from the previous work, and the symbols in the equations should be introduced when it first appears, Obviously, Equations (1) and (13) fail to do so. It is recommended that the authors examine all equations to ensure academic standardization of presenting equations.

2. There are seven paragraphs in Conclusion section, thus making it a little lengthy. It could be better if the authors organize this section like this: First to summarize the main work in this study, like the first paragraph in the original version; and then list the main concluding points obtained, one by one, generally 3-5, each point being as concise as possible, thus interested readers may easily grasp the main points obtained in this study.

3. There are some typos in the manuscript. For example, at line 248, what does the symbol “e” means? At line 371, what does the word “oppure” means? Please check them all.

4. In References, the journal names should be abbreviated forms according to the reference style for the journal Aerospace.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all the comments and the manuscript has been improved. I have no other requests.