Next Article in Journal
A Review on Cement Asphalt Emulsion Mortar Composites, Structural Development, and Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Research into the Strength of an Open Wagon with Double Sidewalls Filled with Aluminium Foam
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Negative Poisson’s Ratio-Spacer Design and Its Thermo-Mechanical Coupling Analysis Considering Specific Force Output

Materials 2021, 14(12), 3421; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123421
by Qianqian Yuan, Yongsheng Zhu *, Ke Yan, Yiqing Cai and Jun Hong
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Materials 2021, 14(12), 3421; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14123421
Submission received: 5 May 2021 / Revised: 31 May 2021 / Accepted: 14 June 2021 / Published: 21 June 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper concerns the investigation of explores a low-porosity topological 3D NPR structure  with  high  stiffness,  considering thermo-mechanical  coupling properties. The scientific results are many, but the work need a revision to better clarify the interpretation of the data and to better present the results. The discussion must be also improved and elaborated.

  1. The author should read the manuscript and clarify the command clearly. The authors have to care about typos. There are careless mistakes in some places.
  2. The authors should more describe the comparative analysis of several cell structures to preferably select the cell structure with the highest deformation capacity.
  3. Lines approx. 137-145 the authors describe the  principle of the NPR spacer, but it is not clear. Pleaserestructured the sentences.
  4. In Figure 16, the authors motioned that the temperature  has  a  greater  impact  on  the  axial  elongation  and  output  force  of  the  NPR spacer more than the speed, please explain better how the temperature influenced.

The reviewer commands the paper to be accepted after minor revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

a deeper description on measured data processing formula and procedures is required
Conclusions are a repetition of the results and then a better analysis is required

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

the paper was correctly revised
Thanks

 

Back to TopTop