Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well structured, has scientific quality and its results are relevant to know the physical properties of composite materials helping to find practical applications of them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank You for this interesting research. The thermo elastic properties of composite materials is currently a very important research area. That's why the publication of such papers may atract a huge audience of readers. Nevertheless the authors should improve the paper in order to have the possibility to get it published. In the reviewers opinion the paper is too long and some of the formulas and tables should be presented in the appendix. The authors declare that they are using the matlab script for the calculation process. It would be advised to present the script in some form, which would allow the reader to assess it. I think that there is a possibility to add additional files, which could be added to the published article. As for the structure the authors should rethink the name of the last paragraph. Currently it is called conclusions, but in it's current state it is more of a discussion/observation. The authors should refer to numerical results in the conclusions and formulate them in a more concise way. If the current commentary conclusions will be additional kept, then the authors should rethink the change of the nam of this paragraph to conslusions and observations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is quite well written and has some publishing potential. 

In the Reviewer's opinion, the results of homogenization procedure should be rearranged - preferably in the form of figures instead of a number of tables. 

Figures 8 and 11 contain discrete data points together with some approximating analytical functions - these functions together with a numerical method leading to their determination should be clearly given and discussed. 

The statement "where Λ represents the jump between different materials and it is a constant value" cannot be accepted as totally misleading. 

The sections 3.2-3.6 should be decisively shorthened because shape functions of the FEM are quite classical and well-known since many years, while matrix description of the homogenization problem itself is available at least from the references mentioned below. 

Semi-analytical approach in the context of homogenization method (both asymptotic and not only) is not the new idea. This has been presented in at least two papers: 

[1] M. Kamiński, Sensitivity and randomness in homogenization of periodic fiber-reinforced composites via the response function method. Int. J. Sol. & Struct. 46(3-4): 923-937, 2009, 

[2] M. Kamiński, On iterative scheme in determination of the probabilistic moments of the structural response in the Stochastic perturbation-based Finite Element Method. Int. J. Num. Meth. Engrg. 104(11): 1038-1060, 2015.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The author developed an in-house built method to compute thermal and elastic properties of fiber reinforced composites. The amount of work is adequate, but the innovation is very limited: (1) the method are established using existing unit cell and finite element modeling techniques as also mentioned in the literature review; (2) the materials have been studied before and no physical experiments have been conducted in this work as validation; and (3) material inner structures are modeled with too many simplifications in current research standard. Therefore, I do not think this manuscript at its current status is qualified for journal publication. Instead, it is more like a small project report. Besides the concern on innovation, some other suggestions are listed below for the authors' reference on further revision:

1. On line 71, matrix is usually completely isotropic instead of transversely isotropic.
2. At the end of section 1, please clearly state your novelty and innovation compared to previous research in the literature.
3. In figure 1, how do you determine the fiber distribution format and unit cell size? Actual composites usually have non-uniform fiber distribution, did you consider this?
4. Please add some actual size values when you compare sizes of unit cells and actual parts for easier understanding of the readers.
5. How did you consider periodic variation of y in equation (1)?
6. Tensors in your equations, like (3) and (4), should be marked with bold font or special symbols for easier understanding.
7. On line 131, how exactly can you use equation (7) to determine the theta function?
8. Figure 2 is unnecessary as it is only a duplication of figure 1.
9. Why do not you directly use FEM and homogenization to numerically determine material properties of composites? This route will be simpler in development aspect compared to the presented research, where AHM need to be included.
10. Sections 3.2 to 3.6 are just standard FEM procedure. What is your contribution?
11. The caption shows that properties in table 3 were calculated. Is it true? Or were these properties experimentally measured?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been revised according to the previous review.

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have provided all the modifications suggested by the Reviewer and now the manuscript is ready for publication in this journal. 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments properly and now the manuscript is more suitable to be published as a journal paper.