Next Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation of Two-Phase Flow in Liquid Composite Moulding Using VOF-Based Implicit Time-Stepping Scheme
Next Article in Special Issue
ANN-Based Estimation of the Defect Severity in the Drilling of GFRP/Ti Multilayered Composite Structure
Previous Article in Journal
Controlling Surface Wettability and Plasmonic Resonance of Au/ZnO Heterostructured Films
Previous Article in Special Issue
Drilling-Induced Damages in Hybrid Carbon and Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Laminate and Optimized Drilling Parameters
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Applicability of Asymmetric Specimens for Residual Stress Evaluation in Fiber Metal Laminates

J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6(11), 329; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6110329
by Johannes Wiedemann 1,*,†, Jan-Uwe R. Schmidt 1,† and Christian Hühne 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6(11), 329; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6110329
Submission received: 14 September 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 2 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advancements in Mechanical Drilling of Composite Laminates)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting approach based on the Applicability of Asymmetric Specimens for Residual Stress Evaluation in Fiber Metal Laminates

. However, the innovation of the current research work should be further highlighted and emphasized. At the same time, the authors should consider the following comments to greatly improve the quality of the paper.

 

1. In the abstract, add a final statement that highlights the importance of this research and its possible potentials. Also, introduce the problem in the initial lines of the abstract.

 

2. The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are: 10.1177/0021998318790093, 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.009, 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114698, 10.1177/0731684417727143, 10.1002/app.46770, 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2022.107015.

 

3. Kindly add a table that describes the main physical and chemical properties of the raw materials used in this study.

 

4. Were the preparation methods described by the authors come in accordance with a certain standard or do they follow previous procedures?

 

5. How was the trimming process for postprocessing carried out? How could you ensure the uniformity of the edge cutting from one sample to the other? Did you measure the surface roughness of the edges as a quality control measure after the edge cutting?

 

6. How many samples were used per configuration for evaluating E1 and E2?

 

7. The conclusion needs to be modified to summarize the research outcomes in short statements with clear observations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article submitted by Wiedemann et al, entitled “Applicability of Asymmetric Specimens for Residual Stress Evaluation in Fiber Metal Laminates” (jcs-1942694), investigated the residual stress of asymmetric fiber metal laminates. It is an important topic for its academic and industrial application, and suitable for the journal of Journal of Composite Science. However, for the benefit of the reader, some minor revisions are still needed before its publication.  

 

1)     About the section materials and methods, it should be more clearly than now. The materials, processing method, calculated method, testing method are better to be explained orderly.

2)     If possible, the fracture surface of the typical tested laminate can be characterized by SEM or others microscopy.

 

In conclusion, a revision is suggested before its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors didn't work on some of the comments as requested.

The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.009, 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114698, 10.1177/0731684417727143.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version is better than before, and I recommend its publication in present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposed references were not yet added.

Back to TopTop