Review Reports - Determination of Prestress in Circular Inhomogeneous Solid and Annular Plates in the Framework of the Timoshenko Hypotheses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed work contains the results of numerical tests of the proposed mathematical model of plates. However, major redrafting of work is necessary.

1) In the introduction, more works should be added in the field of the presented research topics.

2) In the second chapter, it is necessary to add a drawing of the tested boards with the markings used in the model. Consider adding a synthetic test design.

3) Equations need improvement (same style should be used).

4) There is no clear description of the numerical test method used. How was the numerical experiment carried out? What software was used? What were the simulation conditions?

5) It is necessary to correct the graphs (the same style, more precise description under the figures). There is a problem with the line marking. The charts are too poorly described in the text.

6) It should be clearly described for which parameters the individual variants of the experiment were carried out.

7) The proposed conclusions are too general and too short. There is no detailed reference to the presented results.

In the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the work should consider the possibility of conducting experimental research. The comparison of the results of numerical and experimental research would significantly improve the quality of work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! Thank you for your valuable comments to improve the quality of the manuscript. Answers to your comments are given in the attached file. They are also taken into account in the new version of the article, together with the comments of the second reviewer. By publishing rules, all revisions to the manuscript are marked up using the “Track Changes” function in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

prestressed plates within the framework of the Timoshenko hypotheses. The research appears to be efficiently done and appropriately reported; however, the standard of English must be improved. Nevertheless, there are some questions and corrections that must be answered to improve and complete the document.

Abstract section: The abstract is a little bit confuse and missis some information like more results and conclusions, I suggest to authors follow these rules:

One or two sentences on BACKGROUND
Two or three sentences on METHODS
Less than two sentences on RESULTS
One sentence on CONCLUSIONS

Introduction section: In this section, the authors don’t indicate the novelty of their work. what is the innovation of your work when compared with the other researchers? The "Knowledge gap to be filled"? In this introduction, the authors must describe or indicate the work that will be done to test their "hypothesis".

Lines 67, 70, 75, 90, 93, 94: It is preferable to include the authors' names and the reference than only the reference.

Line 186: Please, change the word “Lame” to “Lamé”.

Figures 1 and 2 have the same legend. Why do you indicate a) and b) in figures and you don't indicate them in the legend? Improve the resolution of the figures.

Line 233: Please replace the expression "Computational experiments..." with "Computational tests...". The term "experiments" is related to experimental work in the laboratory and not to computational calculation.

Lines 236, 250, 259, 261, 266, 273, 293, 303: Please replace the word "experiments" with "tests".

Line 252: Which model of analytical noise did you use in "experiment 1"?

Line 317: The "Conclusions" section has the same number as the previous one.

This work is a very interesting analytical approach, however, I would like to know if you have done any experimental validation or if you not, are you thinking, in future works, will do these experimental validations. Have you any idea about your experimental approach? Which experimental techniques are more adequate for your validations? I think that you must discuss these points in your conclusions.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your responses to the review. I believe that they are sufficient and I have no objection to the current version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The second version of manuscript improved significantly when compared with first version. So, in my opinion the manuscript can be accepted for publication.