Multi-Point Interaction of Partially Conductive Cracks with Sweep Frequency Eddy Currents in Electromagnetic Non-Destructive Evaluation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The contribution does read well, and it is already obvious that the coverage of the literature of concern is ample and expert. Afterward, the analysis is well described and I see no flaws, while the conclusions are supported by the experiments as carried out. It is certain that the subject itself is niche-like, I would say for a lay reader as in some way myself, yet applications are of good interest in seen-to-be complex cases of EC NdT, so I understand that the contribution adds to the present state of knowledge. There might be some minor English and typing issues, both within text and captions, to be checked, while I am not so sure about the way Figure 12 looks (the colors, with numbers inside colored boxes). By the way, one may have similar issues with the coloring of some of the curves, notably the yellow ... not obvious to suggest a better representation however, I agree. Overall, I suggest publication about as is.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article in its current state needs greater rigor in the description and introduction of the technique and also in the comparison of the results.
Beforehand, it must be emphasized that the simulated cracks cannot, in any case, be assimilated to natural cracks. Natural cracks can be initiated by several mechanisms (purely mechanical static damage, damage following cyclic stresses, stress-corrosion driven, etc.). For each crack, there is a particular scenario and especially for cracks generated by chemical causes where the corrosion products (metallic oxides) may not appear by electrical detection methods.
For the reasons given, it is essential that the authors write in a more humble way all the parts where they introduce their techniques (Abstract, introduction, results and discussion), by specifying that the proposed approach "seems promising" and especially to avoid the term "reliable".
The second point to improve relates to the results part. The authors make an extensive literature review. It is therefore absolutely incomprehensible that they list the results without comparing them with the bibliographical ones. The authors must emphasize in the results part how this research is innovative? What are its strengths compared to other techniques? What are the weak points? What are the prospects? It is only after this effort that a more complete version will be sent for review, given the fact that these changes are considered absolutely mandatory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article contains interesting laboratory tests that relate to the non-destructive method and which seem to have a developmental aspect. In general, the article has the correct structure, a few comments and suggestions are presented below:
1. In the introduction, a short division of destructive and non-destructive methods should be made, for example in the form of a table or several sentences.
2. In the second chapter, it should be written how many samples have been tested and if there was any difference in the thickness of the steel plate (10 mm).
3. In Figures 5 to 11 at the beginning of the figures, the voltage drops and then increases, please describe this phenomenon.
4. In the discussion section, several references should be added that cover similar issues of non-destructive measurement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is fine
