Reveal of Internal, Early-Load Interfacial Debonding on Cement Textile-Reinforced Sandwich Insulated Panels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting and worth considering by the editor. The novel is that the AE and DIC full-field inspection is compared to traditional damage tracking methods. Nevertheless, the following doubts and remarks should be addressed before the publishing of the paper.

 

Let me underline the main issue which is also mentioned in the “Additional Comments” namely:
“You tested only one panel for REF and IID. It means that you do not have the statistical data which in the case of the SIP elements could have an influence on the obtained data. The mechanical properties of the TRC layers and the core layer are usually characterized by a large scatter of the mechanical properties. How you can justify the use of only one panel per test.“

More remarks and doubts are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewers for the thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. All comments enlisted at the review report are addressed, the manuscript is modified and corrected accordingly. Enclosed the extended revision of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

REVIEW REPORT

This is a research article entitled as “Reveal of internal, early-load interfacial debonding on cement-textile reinforced sandwich panels” discussing internal interfacial debonding of sandwich panels made of light weight cementitious composite skin,tracked by acoustic emission. Acoustic emission source localization, validated by digital image correlation strain and out of plane full field mapping, is clearly discussed in this research article. We can also find a detailed introduction about sandwich panels, failure modes, and acoustic emission. The need for present investigation should be included in the introduction. Hence, I recommend that the article be thoroughly revised. Check the nomenclature throughout the article. It is recommended to add results and discussion in a single heading, which may be easier for the reader to understand. In the results and discussion section, the results should be compared with literature data and the reason behind them should be discussed clearly. In general, load is mention as “kN” or “N,” but is unit “kN/m^2” used for pressure? Is there any specification behind it? Include experimental failure pattern figures stating different modes of failures.  

However, I request authors to respond to few questions to improve the quality of the article.

Abstract

1. Quantitative results should be included in the abstract.
2. Reduce the number of keywords as per author guidelines.

Introduction

1. Include an introduction about digital image correlation in sandwich panels.
2. What do “XPS” and “EPS” stand for?
3. Page 2, line 76-77: check the sentence structure.

Materials and methods

1. Check the units in Table 1.
2. Include the textile reinforcement figure. Explain clearly how it is placed. What are all the properties of the textile material? How is the cover maintained?
3. Include a schematic diagram for loading arrangement, LVDT arrangement, and processer for experiment.
4. Page 3, line 122-123: rewrite the sentence.
5. Include properties of cement and fine aggregates in Table 1.
6. Page 5, line 158-165: check the sentence structure.

Results

1. Page 5, line 182-186: check the sentence structure.
2. Figure 3.2: explain the reason behind “Why the strains are distributed from supporting edges rather than from middle”?
3. Heading 3.3: there is no need for introducing the word “W” for deflection, which may confuse the reader. Hence, it is recommended to put “deflection mapping” throughout the text.

Discussion

1. “The accuracy of the LVDT traditional measuring device is not questioned.” The sentence like this is meaningless.
2. Heading 4.1: check the sentence structure for lines 260-271.
3. Discuss the strain change in each loading rate and the scientific reason behind it clearly.
4. There are no experimental images regarding the debonding failure for sandwich panels (IID or reference panels) at different points.
5. In Figure 5, there is negative displacement. Since there is no LVDT or defelectometer is used at support (as described in methods heading)? How is it plotted?
6. Figure 6: Y axis units should be similar.

Conclusion

1. Quantitative results should be included.
2. All results should be included (type of failure, maximum loading, etc.).
3. Overall outcome of study for civil engineer society or researcher or scientific community should be included.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The Authors wish to thank the Reviewer for the thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. All comments enlisted at the review report are addressed, the manuscript is modified and corrected accordingly. The amendments are highlighted in blue color at the revised version of the manuscript. Enclosed the revised version of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your explanations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Based upon earlier comments made by the reviewers the article presentation, language, flow, etc had been improvised. 

Hence, I recommend the article for publication.