Contactless Material Tensile Testing Using a High-Resolution Camera
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In paper: Contactless material tensile testing using high resolution camera are given some interesting results based on contactless measurement based on high-resolution imaging device in tensile testing of materials.
-explain dimensions used in figure 1
- explain the measures from eq. 1
- better structure of the Conclusions section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Contactless material tensile testing using high resolution camera
Jaroslav Bulava, Libor Hargaš, Dušan Koniar
Paper submitted to COMPUTATION, entitled: Contactless material tensile testing using high resolution camera contains interesting results. In the reviewed article the authors propose the method and system for automated measuring the height, width and crack occurrence during the tensile testing. In addition, the system is able to predict where a crack will appear.
The main topic of the article is the static tensile test. The authors describe this topic as part of the introduction. Unfortunately, in this description they did not manage to avoid errors that need to be corrected. The detailed revising comments are as follow:
Pg 1/ line 10 The expression was used: universal tearing machine (UTM). Did the authors mean “testing machine”?
Pg 1/ line 29-30 The static tensile test is performed in accordance with the standard (e.g. ASTM, ISO). On the basis of the tests performed, the parameters are determined, which are also described in the standard. Do the parameters listed on lines 29-30 coincide with those listed in the standards? Please also provide the appropriate parameter markings in brackets [e.g. percentage elongation after fracture (A)].
Pg 1/ line 30 "Elongation" appears twice.
Pg 2/ Figure 1 Not all lengths are properly marked. Please make the appropriate corrections. Additionally, in the description of the figure, please explain what the symbols in the drawings mean.
Pg 2/ Figure 2 There is an error in the description of the “Young's Modulud” in the chart.
Pg 3/ line 65 In the expression ? = ?. ??l multiplication sign is a regular period (the multiplication sign should be higher than the period in the sentence).
Pg 3/ line 71 The sentence “The deformation remains constant along the section between point U to point P,…..” refers to points U and P, which are marked on the diagram. U and P appear on the graph, but they are not points. Please correct / clarify.
Pg 3/ line 112 The expression was used: digital picture correlation (DIC). According to the reviewer, the proper name is: digital image correlation.
Only in the conclusion there is a short indication of how the proposed method differs from DIC. I think it would be worth paying a little more attention and showing in detail the differences between the two methods - maybe create a subsection on this topic.
Pg 12/ line 358 “tested. used”?
Pg 12/ line 364 Not brushed: “4. Experimental measurement”.
Pg 16 The bibliography contains only 21 references, of which 7 are websites. I think it is worth extending the bibliography, especially with scientific articles available in Scopus, ScinceDirect, Springer, etc.
Maybe it is worth writing whether the method is dedicated to some specific samples - shape, material, or has any limitations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your responses to the review. I am very pleased that my comments have been taken into account.
Just two more details:
I. When it comes to the description of the length of the test sample, I most often come across such an entry:
Figure 1.
Lc-parallel length
L0-original gauge length
Lt- total length of tested piece
II. Hook's equation is the equation for the graph in Figure 2. So I think it's worth introducing the same notations - I mean the symbol for stress. Most often, the stress is written as sigma "σ". Therefore, I propose to introduce a small change in the graph - description of the Y-axis.
Best regards,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors of paper: Contactless measuring method based on specialized visual systems must re-consider the entire article, the novelty part must be highlighted, the scientific content is very low, experimental results must be properly presented. I am against the publication of this paper , at least in the current form. The paper has an experimental idea but is not well argued and commented. The main comments are:
L10-15: present in the abstract the novelty of the article and the main findings
L20-22: use the term materials
L26: mention a result of Tensile testing - I don t understand what does Figure 1 brings as novelty ? I recommend to the authors o delete this image
L40: not necessary
L39: is ref 12 or 1,2 ? the authors pass from 1 to 12
L51: ref 3 is given after 1 should be named 2
L55: Figure 2 . is not the material sample ....is a drawing or a sketch
L55: improve the image quality or remove the image (reccomended)
L60: re-phrase
L61: explain point U - mention U on figure 3
L65: explain R, E and epsilon
L71: present point P
L90: 1,
L93-104: give 1 or 2 references titles
L104: re-phrase
Figure 4 : not necessary , L119: delete
L111: Ref 4 , were are 5,6,7 ...., you have only 13 references
L141: Figure 5 - can be removed
L144: Ref 13 from 6
L174: better quality
Figure 7 ...can be deleted
............ and so on
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find the reviewer's comment as an attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is lack of scientific novelty, and not prepared well. The content is like of experimentation report, and the overall presentation is not satisfactory.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors are discussing an im
The authors are discussing an important subject regarding contactless measuring of mechanical properties of a material. Substantial work is being performed nowadays in this area and has a high demand in the industrial field. So, the subject is of great interest and deserves careful attention. The manuscript is presenting a large description of the testing methods, with or without contact techniques and is also showing the disadvantages of the conventional approach. The description of the 2 contactless methods is made in a succinct but suggestive fashion. The description of the applied method and experimental findings contain complex calibration data and pattern matching details. A small remark here is the chapter 6 content that in my opinion should contain more comments on the comparison results. Why would the accuracy results be so different? What could be the reasons? Some of the text was added to conclusions. I would suggest to replace them in the conclusion section with succinct findings and move part of the present conclusions in the comparison part.
portant subject regarding the
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors manage to improve the quality of the paper. However the images, most of all, need a better quality.
Please exclude figure 11 , what is the technical importance of this image ?, it is not proper for an ISI paper.
in figure 7 the scale or X ax is to less visible
Better quality and representation of figure 8 is necessary
in Figure 9, 10 and 12 provide an informative scale : mm or cm
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was revised accordingly, but overall manuscript is still unable to meet the requirement of journal paper. More like an experimental report. Figure qualities are poor. Advances are not convincing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 1 is not mention , anymore, in text and should be in section 2 : Non-contact methods for tensile test evaluation - by my opinion can be deleted
Mention the scientific importance of Figure 3 : Figure 3. Video extensometry - or remove this image - is not scientifically relevant or important
improve the quality of imagine 5 - the text is unreadable
in image 7 the part from the right , not visible, can be excluded and make the proper comments in text
The paper is difficult to be analyzed in this format, please remove the deleted text , images or tables and I will read again the paper , thank you.
