Free Vibrational Analysis of a Functionally Graded Five-Layer Sandwich Plate Resting on a Winkler Elastic Foundation in a Thermal Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript may be accepted if the following errors are corrected:
1. Figure 1 should clearly show the coordinate axes in each layer.
2. The manuscript needs to clearly define the range of variation of the z coordinate in each layer
3. The article clearly states that the outermost surfaces are ceramic and metal, so Equation (2) needs to be written more clearly to show this, because the value of the variable z(k) is not clear.
4. Formula (8) needs to unify the italic symbol
5. Formula (10) should clearly show how the density of reaction force of foundation is calculated
6. Section 3, the authors need to agree on lowercase letters, not bold in the footnotes of the tables.
7. The difference between the results calculated by the correct solution and the solution by FEM is only small with mode 1, and the other modes are very different, the manuscript needs further discussion on this issue.
4. To enrich the introduction section, the authors should refer to some of the following related publications:
- DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-7149-2_3
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1099636219849268
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406220964522
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The simply support boundary conditions were imposed on the all four edges. Better show the boundary conditions in the finite element model.
Give a legend in Fig. 4.
Similarly, add a legend in Fig. 5. Also, the figure is very unclear. Increase the font size, figure size and resolution.
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the developed analytical model, also the applications and limitations.
Except [1-2], it is suggested to add some literatures for applications of FGMs in the aerospace: 10.3897/arb.v33.e14; Machines. Technologies. Materials 8 (2014) 13–16; Composites Part B 82 (2015) 13-22; Composite Structures 134 (2015) 680-688.
The conclusion is too length, only summarise the key conclusions here, and better list them in bullet points to make them more clear.
A title should be given for Appendix A and appendix B, along with some brief text for explanation of the equations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is ok now
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for making the revisoins so quick. Please upload the detailed point-by-point response to my previous comments. I believe this has not been uploaded. Also, please consider my previous comments that the introduction can be enriched on FGMs and the applications, e.g. in the aerospace, doi: 10.3897/arb.v33.e14; 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.07.018; 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.08.113
Author Response
Hello dear editor
Please see the attachment.
Best Regards
Mohammad Reza
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
No further comments
