Visco-Elastic Plate Motion after Its Breaking into Parts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The motion of a visco-elastic plate after it breaks into two parts has been studied using the normal mode method in this manuscript. The effect of viscous properties of plate is investigated. This paper should be minor revised before acceptance. The detailed suggestions are listed below:
- The accuracy of the result should be validated by using other method.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestions and comments aimed at improving the quality of our paper.
Reviewer’s comment:
The accuracy of the result should be validated by using other method.
Author’s response:
The motivation of this study is explained clearly in the Introduction now. This study is concerned with some strange numerical results in the 2D problem of a rigid body impact onto a floating ice floe. To support our numerical results, a simplified problem was constructed and solved analytically in the present paper. The analytical solution has confirmed that the plate acceleration after breaking is very high, as it was observed in the numerical solution of the ice floe problem. The numerical solution for ice floes should be validated by experiments. However, we are unaware of experiments with a vertical impact onto floating viscoelastic plate. This is also explained in the Introduction and then in the Conclusion. The Abstract and the beginning of the Introduction was rewritten.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript studied unsteady cylindrical bending of a visco-elastic clamped thin plate just after the plate breaks suddenly into two parts by a slowly increasing aerodynamic pressure. Major concerns should be addressed:
- In Abstract the author stated that “the plate breaks suddenly into two parts by a slowly increasing aerodynamic pressure”, but in section 2, the pressure Pcr was set as a constant value. The author should clearly clarify this issue.
- The background and significance should be highlighted in Introduction.
- The Reference is highly unsufficient.
- In Equation 1, the pressure Pcr was set as a constant value in the whole process. Does it reasonable? The pressure could decrease after the The author should clearly clarify.
- The results were not convinced, since no experimental results/published results is not compared.
- Is Equation 1 reasonable to describe the physical process?
- Generally, the author only solved a PDE problem, what is new in this study?
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestions and comments aimed at improving the quality of our paper.
Reviewer’s comment:
In Abstract the author stated that “the plate breaks suddenly into two parts by a slowly increasing aerodynamic pressure”, but in section 2, the pressure Pcr was set as a constant value. The author should clearly clarify this issue.
Author’s response:
The aerodynamic pressure increases slowly before the plate breaks. This stage is described in the Introduction. Later, after the plate breaking, the aerodynamic pressure is constant, which is used in Section 2.
Reviewer’s comment:
The background and significance should be highlighted in Introduction.
Author’s response:
The Abstract and Introduction have been rewritten to highlight the background and significance of this study.
Reviewer’s comment:
The Reference is highly unsufficient.
Author’s response:
Nine new relevant references were added.
Reviewer’s comment:
In Equation 1, the pressure Pcr was set as a constant value in the whole process. Does it reasonable? The pressure could decrease after that the author should clearly clarify.
Author’s response:
In the physical formulation of the problem, which is given in the Introduction, the pressure in the air chamber does not change after the plate breaks.
Reviewer’s comment:
The results were not convinced, since no experimental results/published results is not compared.
Author’s response:
This paper is about a “model problem”, which helps to understand some strange numerical results of practical problems. The model used to simulate practical problems should be validated by experiments and existing results, this is correct. We corrected the Abstract and Introduction highlighting that we do not model a physical phenomenon, but we investigate a numerical model of a physical phenomenon.
Reviewer’s comment:
Is Equation 1 reasonable to describe the physical process?
Author’s response:
References to support equation (1) were added.
Reviewer’s comment:
Generally, the author only solved a PDE problem, what is new in this study?
Author’s response:
We investigated a plate motion after its breaking in a simplified formulation and configuration to reveal properties of the numerical solution of the problem, and to explain dependance of the plate acceleration shortly after breaking on the structural damping model. We are unaware of existing studies of such problems with sudden changes of the properties of a structure.
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract:
- Too short, authors should elaborate more.
-Authors can discussed more details on the final findings.
-Add more quantitative & qualitative results
Introduction
-Less citation from current related research manuscript
-Shows authors lack of comparing current reference manuscript
- The gap of this research not emphasize in the last paragraph of introduction chapter
Analysis of the solution
- Lack of details explanation for Figure 3-8
-Authors should improve the explanation part
- No validation work from experimental or numerical data
Conclusion
-lack of quantative and qualitative data in this section
Reference
-only 5 reference included. Not enough reference to support this manuscript. Please add more reference with minimum of 15-20 reference. This will support the research gap
-Add more latest manuscript.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for the suggestions and comments aimed at improving the quality of our paper.
Reviewer’s comment:
Abstract: - Too short, authors should elaborate more.
Author’s response:
The Abstract was rewritten.
Reviewer’s comment:
Authors can discussed more details on the final findings.
Author’s response:
The Introduction and Conclusion were significantly revised.
Reviewer’s comment:
-Add more quantitative & qualitative results
Author’s response:
Discussions of the results were added to the Introduction and Conclusion.
Reviewer’s comment:
Introduction
-Less citation from current related research manuscript
-Shows authors lack of comparing current reference manuscript
- The gap of this research not emphasize in the last paragraph of introduction chapter
Author’s response:
Relevant references were added. Motivation of this research is discussed in detail now in the Introduction. The gap in our knowledge, which motivated the present research, was identified.
Reviewer’s comment:
Analysis of the solution
- Lack of details explanation for Figure 3-8
-Authors should improve the explanation part
- No validation work from experimental or numerical data
Author’s response:
Explanation of the obtained results were improved. The present analysis is used to validate and explain the numerical results obtained by the authors for the problem of vertical impact onto ice floes (under preparation for publication).
Reviewer’s comment:
Conclusion
-lack of quantative and qualitative data in this section
Author’s response:
Conclusion was revised.
Reviewer’s comment:
Reference-only 5 reference included. Not enough reference to support this manuscript. Please add more reference with minimum of 15-20 reference. This will support the research gap-Add more latest manuscript.
Author’s response:
Nine new relevant references were added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
It can be acceptted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed all the comment given
