Thermal Deformation Measurement of Aerospace Honeycomb Panel Based on Fusion of 3D-Digital Image Correlation and Finite Element Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Publications are quite difficult to read.
The literature introduction is done inadequately.
For example:
the literature introduction omits an important aspect about diagnosing material defects or testing materials for their behavior by non-contact methods.
It is necessary to expand on thermal imaging methods and on shearography.
Definitely, the theoretical introduction is not done very precisely and necessarily needs to be improved, especially since the authors rely on image analysis from two cameras.
In my opinion, the purpose and motivation of the work is too poorly motivated, practically lacking.
What is new in the research presented by the authors?
Figure 1 is illegible. Please enlarge it.
No commentary under Figure 1. The figure itself does not make a significant contribution. It is necessary to describe what is in the figure and what the different elements are.
The chapter (2.1.1. Image matching principle) introduces the reader too vaguely to the measurement principle. A more detailed development of the image analysis principle is required. In addition, Figure 2 is too general and is also not described in the text. It is necessary to add words of commentary / description.
Line 272-274 please specify to what extent the influence of noise will increase and the measurement accuracy will be affected. What are the limit values? Currently this is too general a statement.
Figure 3 The captions are too small in my opinion. I suggest the authors increase their readability.
Figure 4. no description of the interpretation of the results.
288 what is the honeycomb core made of? Please add this in the text if other materials are mentioned.
The description of the experiment lacks important data. How is the temperature of the thermocoupe recorded? What is the sampling interval, what is the amplifier / data logger. It is not clear to me where exactly the measurement points are located. Please mark them at least a few clearly on the drawing.
What criterion did the authors follow that they chose a fixed temperature of 100 C?
Were the deformation changes (individual images) recorded over time, or only at steady state?
Figure 7 is also not described. The fact that we can see the colors in the illustration does not contribute much. What is their interpretation? This is an unconditionally important question. Results without description give too much freedom of interpretation.
Line 325 editing error? Please arrange the data so that the table is undivided.
Figures 8 and 9 have no descriptions. What is important on them? What the reader is supposed to pay attention to. It is necessary to describe it in the text and mark important areas with an arrow, symbol.
Figure 10, what is important here? No explanation.
Tables 4, 5 and 6. Data are presented but, as with figures and graphs, it is not clear exactly what is meant. No sufficient interpretation of the values obtained.
For what did the authors adopt 10 hidden layer? What were the differences for other settings? Please state this and indicate the specific values. At the moment I can assume that this is not confirmed by anything.
Figures 13 and 14 are described too modestly.
Figure 15: What is the essence of it. How the data should be interpreted. Description is absolutely required here.
Line 427 editing error. The description is on a different page than the figure.
Data in Figures 17 and 18 lack sufficient commentary.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate to refer in line 441 to the data in Figure 16. This type of description should appear earlier. In addition, I think that the mere reference to the figure is not contributing anything.
Figure 19: it adds nothing to the text. If the authors want to draw attention to something and show an important element it must be clearly marked.
The same comments apply to Figure 20 and Table 10.
The conclusions are very but very general.
The authors have not really summarized their achievements in a synthetic way. They are general truths.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
In the beginning, I would like to say that your paper is interesting and in most cases well written. However, there are some issues that I want to point out in order to improve the paper. The quality of the information is especially important for a case study type of paper.
A) General remarks
1. Please do not use personal pronouns like “we”. For the scientific paper, only the impersonal form is proper. Please check the whole article.
2. In the case of the title and the abstract, those elements must be understandable to none familiar to the field reader. It is advised to use no abbreviations if possible. The reviewer suggests at least not using the DIC abbreviation in the title so the title is clear. In the abstract, the authors are using abbreviations, which should be avoided in the abstract and those abbreviations should be introduced for the first time in the main text.
3. When using the names of techniques like Digital Image Correlation the words should be written with first capital letters. Please check the whole article e.g title of subsection 2.1.
4. The introduction part is written clearly. However:
a. The last paragraph where the aim, goal and especially the novelty of the study is to be presented is to be rewritten. The novelty component is not present here only the structure of the article.
b. There is a clear focus of the introduction on the satellite components testing but no evaluation of testing methods, especially optical ones and especially ones useful to connect to FEM simulations. The reviewer would ask to introduce some other optical techniques that may be possible to use and compare with the choice of DIC. The most important one, which is not mentioned, is 3D Laser Doppler Vibrometry. The primary usage is vibration measurements of structures and systems. But with a special direct option or indirect software feature, it is also possible to measure strain stress. One possible application is for quality control which can find applications also for RC structures e.g DOI: 10.1109/IDAACS53288.2021.9661060 . One comment in case of comparison of the techniques. In the case of DIC, although, this is a non-destructive method, still it is necessary to cover the structure with the spackle pattern (paint). In the case of 3D LDV this is a fully optical method with no additional input (usually) on the structure needed. Consider adding those references. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2016.10.022 .
5. Material and methods are good and no significant changes are required
6. Conclusions – please emphasise the novelty and the usage of the test findings.
B) Items remarks
Fig. 1 suggest enlarging so the texts and photos are fully visible
Fig. 2 suggest enlarging
Tables 1 and 2. there must be a space between the unit and the value (except % and degC). Please also check in this case the whole article or figures, tables and text. There are some other occurrences of the same editing problem.
Fig. 3 must be enlarged. The text is not visible.
Fig, 4 space is missing the Y-axis caption and unit. Also if possible please enlarge
Fog.5 a)b)c) are not aligned properly under each picture. Also, it would be profitable to have pictures b and c enlarged so everything is clearly visible. Maybe in row 1 only (a) and in rows, 2 b and c enlarged.
Fig. 6 also text not visible and the figure is too small
Fig 7 values on the axis are out of focus and not visible. Improve the quality
Fig 12 also text not visible.
Fig 13 is very important and would be nicer if a little bigger
Fig 14 out of focus
Fig 15 is out of focus. Please improve the quality
C) Conclusions
Due to some flaws, the reviewer is marking the paper for major revisions. Hope the authors will use some suggestions to improve this otherwise very interesting Paper. Please especially improve the presentation of the results (quality of the figures). The main issue is the novelty which must be stronger emphasised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents an interesting research but they are some issues that should be solved:
- Please be more specific and explain which is the purpose of the origin systems 0s and 0i from Figure 2?
- How was obtained in equation (1) the matrix which contains fx and fy?
- How was obtained equation (4)?
- In line 229, to which skin is referring on the geometry parameters?
- Which are the limitations of the optimization model described by the equations (5) – (8)?
- Please indicate similar literature where the results from the paper can be fitted into.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the changes made, however, in my opinion, their nature is not sufficient. Some comments are not sufficiently taken into account.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The paper was improved significantly and although there are still some areas for improvement, they are not critical for the understanding of the paper. Thus, if no additional requests are needed from other reviewer/s the paper can be considered for publication.
Best regards,
The reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
