Influence of Structural Configurations on the Shear Fatigue Damage of the Blade Trailing-Edge Adhesive Joint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is topical and relevant to the journal. I thought the modelling was rigorous and the conclusions were well supported.

I have some minor editorial comments:

1) Figure 6 should be labelled to provide the reader with information about the laboratory setup.

2) The resolution of Figure 8 and Figure 10 should be improved.

3) Table 1 is quite long and unnecessary due to Figure 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the research is interesting, investigating the influences of trailing edge structural configurations on the shear fatigue life of trailing edge of a wind turbine blade. I have several comments on the manuscript

1. The abstract should be restructured; more background information should be included before diving into the methods and materials, to highlight the importance of the research. The word wind turbine is not mentioned once in the abstract. I believe it is important to focus the importance of the research in the abstract framing it in the importance of wind energy and the challenges that shear fatigue is causing in the structure of wind turbine blades.

2. The Introduction should also be restructured to highlight the importance of the research. A significant number of citation should be added. The statement in line 28 “Blade lengths of over 100 meters and turbines of over 12 Mega Watt are available on the market in 2018” requires a citation. I believe these wind turbines are still in demonstration stage. The introduction should include some of the challenges that shear fatigue in the trailing age of the turbine blade cause for the wind industry, to highlight the importance of the research topic.

3. Table 3 should be reorganized and/or converted to graphic form showing the reader the implication of the results presented.

4. Additional discussion should be added in Results/Discussion sections to the manuscript to showcase the importance of the research for wind industry and how it can help better understand or overcome issues presented by turbine blade fatigue.

5. The discussion indicated in lines 232-235 “The peak value of damage in the middle region will change with the movement of UD position. The valley value of the middle region will move towards the leading edge along with UD positioning, and the valley value will be lower as it moves towards the leading edge” should be expanded and potential practical implications described.

6. Lines 231, 254 and 270 mentioned “same rule”. It is important to clarify what is the meaning of this. I believe repeating “same rule” is not appropriate and might be confusing for the reader. An explanation in every case, even brief, would be helpful

7. Conclusion should be expanded to highlight the importance of the research for wind industry and how it can help better understand or overcome issues presented by wind turbine blade fatigue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the research is interesting, investigating the influences of trailing edge structural configurations on the shear fatigue life of trailing edge of a wind turbine blade.

The authors incorporated most of the review comments in the manuscript and I believe there was improvement over the original version.

However, I found a very large number of grammatical errors, poor construction and punctuation. I would strongly recommend for the manuscript to be thoroughly edited by someone that is native English-speaker.

Some examples of this are: “longer and longer”, “higher and higher” (abstract) “And About” (line 45)  “mould” (line 267) “Firstly” (Line 42 & 301)

The reference format is not uniform and many references do not conform to the rules of the journal. It should be corrected. Examples “Germanischer Lloyd (2010 Edition) [26]” (Line 101)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for your comments concerning our manuscript with the ID applsci-756398. Please allow us to apologize for our grammatical errors and poor construction.

We have revised our manuscript carefully in accordance with your comments. The changes are marked in yellow in the revised manuscript. Below we would like to address your comments step by step:

Point 1: grammatical errors, poor construction and punctuation.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out this problem. A large number of changes have been made to the grammar and construction in the revised version and they were marked in yellow. Inappropriate uses such as “mould” and “firstly” have been modified in the revised manuscript.

Point 2: The reference format is not uniform and many references do not conform to the rules of the journal. It should be corrected.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out this problem. The format of the references has been modified and make sure that the citation format in the article meets the requirements of the journal. For example, “Germanischer Lloyd (2010 Edition) [26]” was changed to “design guidelines [26]” (Line 99)

 Finally, once again, I'd like to express my deepest apology and sincere thanks!

We appreciate reviewers’ warm review work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thanks very much for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx