Vibration and Wave Analyses in the Functionally Graded Graphene-Reinforced Composite Plates Based on the First-Order Shear Deformation Plate Theory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The submitted paper can be of interest for the journal's readers, however many updates are needed as follows:
- Literature survey is a weak side of the paper, many recently published papers related to mechanics of FG-GPLs reinforced plates and shells are not presented here. Additionally, the novelty of the paper is not sufficiently highlighted. Any shortcomings and deficiencies of previous (not mentioned papers) should be more carefully discussed in the introduction.
2. Explanation of why the Halpin-Tsai technique is only used for Young's modulus but the rule of mixtures only for density and Poisson's ratio should appear in the manuscript.
3. Are there used essential or natural BCs or both? If both why? Essential BCs are not enough?
4. Validation of results, convergence studies are not done. Without this, the paper cannot be suggested for publication in the journal.
5. Discussion of results and conclusions should be deeper. Please deeply study the effect of nanofillers, GPLs patterns, and BCs on the response of the plate. More physical/mechanical insights into the mechanics of considered structure should be presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors should work a little more to the connection between the graphene and graphene platelets and the math models.
Eq.1 looks a little scary. But only looks. Because the choice of giving it by the authors is very unfortunate. With some proper notations the equation become much simpler.
Some terminology must be revised. Looking at your eq.3 and citing Wikipedia for instance "In materials science and solid mechanics, Poisson's ratio (nu) is a measure of the Poisson effect, the deformation (expansion or contraction) of a material in directions perpendicular to the specific direction of loading. The value of Poisson's ratio is the negative of the ratio of transverse strain to axial strain." it is clear for me that you and Wikipedia talk about different Poissons and/or different ratios. You need to revise.
The math which follows ("3. Theoretical formulations of composite plates ") I am not quite sure if it is suitable to be in the manuscript or in the appendix of it.
Number 16 at eq. is wrongly typed as 15.
Eqs. 17(a,b,c) it is my guess that are not the all possible states for the frontier, are only the ones which gives some important, but convenient particular cases. It was omitted to be mentioned this.
Indeed MRRM formulation is much more elegant. The importance of the eigenproblem formulation must not be left out uncommented and unreferenced. The entire "3.2. MRRM formulation" section have almost no reference in it. The authors should expand the referenced literature on the subject with some more sources. One important connection, discussing the use of eigenproblem in the molecular alignment is 10.3390/sym11081027. Other connections should be explored as well.
The "4. Results and discussion" section should communicate your results. Table 1 is data from literature. It should be at "Materials and method".
The way in which data were processed for the remaining of the tables must be given.
Are no MDPI references given on the subject and definitely exists and must be given.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is suggested for publication in the journal.
Author Response
Thank you for your rigorous review of this paper. :)
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is improved. I cannot agree with some author's assertions (example, response 6: "In the present study, three typical however important boundary conditions in the engineering, including simply supported (S), clamped (C) and free (F) ends, are discussed due to the limited space. Unquestionably, the other BCs can be involved easily by using the proposed model." - I believe that the author pasted the answer from the reply to another journal - there are no limited space in the Open Access publication). Also, to the point 7 the authors did not explored other connections as suggested, just simply replaced for one suggested connection one reference with another. I believe that the preparing of the revised manuscript deserves more than half of an hour from you.
The manuscript it is still very huge in its maths and I believe that at least a part of them must go to an appendix (please revise also the not addressed Point 4 from my previous review).
Author Response
Thank the reviewer for the rigorous review of this paper. Your revision opinions are seriously treated, and the revisions are listed as follows,Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
