Application of Particle Swarm Optimization for Improvement of Peel Strength in a Laminated Double-Lap Composite Joint

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript on  "Application of Particle Swarm Optimization for Improvement of Peel Strength in a Laminated Double-Lap Composite Joint", has to overcome following:

1. Introduction part of the manuscript is too lengthy, required to reduce the manuscript length accordingly.

2. Overall manuscript looks like review of an Laminated Double Lap composite using suitable equations, not finding major contribution from the authors.

3. Table 1, mechanical properties with respect to FEM, no suitable data is available in the manuscript.

4. How maximum peel stress is affected by fiber angle, suitable technical discussion is required.

5. Table 2 to Table 7 have to discuss properly with suitable references.

6. All parameters have been concluded based on assumptions and other equations, authors need to work at-least on one parameter by conducting experimental work and comparison in the manuscript is required.

Major revision of manuscript is required.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report

applsci-1778579-peer-review-v1

Application of Particle Swarm Optimization for Improvement of Peel
Strength in a Laminated Double-Lap Composite Joint.

The paper shares a study on particle swarm optimization for improvement of peel
strength in a laminated double-lap composite joint. The authors have presented a very good work in this version. However, I have some concerns must be addressed before accepting this manuscript.

Authors should clarify the following comments:

1.      The introduction is not well written. The authors use too many subsections so I can't see the logical structure of this part. I suggest re-organizing it. It is worth mentioning that particle-swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is one of the core contents of this article, so the related concepts and application documentation should be added in the introduction; the end of the introduction part should be a summary of the above-mentioned documents and an explanation of the motivation of this article. It is recommended that the author rewrite this part.

2.      In abstract, some sentences are lengthy, and are written in past tense, for example <This study 19 presented a method... >. The entire abstract should be in present tense. The author is suggested to revise all lengthy sentences available in abstract as well as in entire paper.

3.      The Figure captions, particularly Figure 1 and Figure 2, need to be modified for better understanding. Author is suggested to address this problem.

4.      Add a transition paragraph and describe every section as the last paragraph of introduction.

5.      The structure of the article is too fragmented and the readability is not good. Please add a “Results and Discussion” section. Also, the last section “Conclusions should be “Section 6”.

6.      To improve the clarity of the paper, I would suggest writing explicitly the objective function that the PSO has to optimize. In particular, the penalty function used.

7.      The optimization process is based on a PSO algorithm, but a description of the used algorithm is lacking, also some PSO parameters are lacking i.e. which values were used for the cognitive and social parameters? How these values were selected? Also it is advisable to give some guidelines on how to choose these parameters. What is the influence for each of them in the performance of the optimization problem?

8.      The paper is fraught with grammatical errors, especially punctuation errors. To this end, the work needs to be thoroughly proofread and edited accordingly.

***

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a study of using particle swarm optimization to find the best layup for a classic double lap joint under horizontal constant tensile forces. The subject presented in the manuscript is interesting. However, the manuscript could be improved. I believe that the authors will find below some suggestions, which will help them to improve their manuscript:

More relevant studies on lap joint optimisation using particle swarm can be included in the introduction. e.g. Int. J. Materials Engineering Innovation, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2019.

Also, there is no sufficient research background being covered at the beginning. What are the advantages of adhesive Joints compared with traditional mechanical fasteners? A very brief paragraph illustrating these at the beginning would be very useful. e.g., ‘Adhesive joints are increasingly used for joining composite structures or dissimilar materials in aerospace and automotive industries. Adhesive joints have unique advantages compared with traditional mechanical fasteners which have to deal with the problems of loosening clamping force and fatigue strength due to the spiral shape of the bolt-nut thread, wherein high stress concentration factor occurs at the first bot thread [Composites Part B 82 (2015) 13-22] and the load distribution in threads are uneven [Composite Structures 134 (2015) 680-688].’

Are the formulas in the article original? If not needed appropriate citations. After each formula, the authors need to list and decipher each physical parameter. All physical parameters must be designated in accordance with standard designations and names.

It will be useful to add a section of Nomenclature in which to sign all the physical quantities and abbreviations encountered in the article. There are many physical quantities in the text and such a section will help to find the description of the necessary element.

The topic of the article is interesting and deserves attention. It can be seen that the authors have done significant research on the stated topic. However, authors should carefully study all comments. Only after making changes accordingly can the article be considered for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have incorporated all the changes in the manuscript, can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

No comment