Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well written and deals with a topic of interest appropriate to the chosen journal. Some revision is necessary to better understand and replicate the experiments:
in chapter 3 it would be necessary to indicate the type of plastic material used and also the relative suppliers, as it is not indicated.

In the last chapter 5 the results are presented in general, I would suggest a division of the last chapter (5) in two different sections: The results and an other chapter dedicated only to conclusions.

Author Response

Author's reply was written in a attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- The subject matter of the paper is within the scope of the journal and has a  good technical quality.

- I remarked:

the originality and the clarity of the paper. That the paper represents a new and an original contribution in the field.

- The references are adequate and all they are necessary.

- Author, please arrange in a nicer form the Equations (ex. (11)) and insert point or comma after, as it is required..

- Table 4 is out of the page format.

- I think, the author must strengthen the References section with the references that use the same technique, to make the technique used more plausible, for instance:

Stress singularity of symmetric free-edge joints with elasto-plastic behaviour, Computational Materials Science 52(1), 282-286, (2012); Considerations on mixed initial-boundary value problems for micropolar porous bodies, Syst. Appl 25(1-2), 175-196, (2016); Influence of Fiber Volume Content on Thermal Conductivity in Transverse and Fiber Direction of Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Epoxy Laminates,Materials12(7), 1084, (2019)

If the authors take into account all these recommendations, then the manuscript deserves to be published.

Author Response

Author's reply was written in a attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf