Vibration-Based Diagnostics of Non-Ceramic Insulators: Characterization of Signals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors aim to detect defects in composite insulators made from glass fiber-reinforced polymers. The methodology involves collecting voltage measurements from a pristine state to establish a baseline signal for damage identification. While the structure under investigation is intriguing, the methodology presented is incomplete and somewhat confusing, lacking significant details that would support the findings. Below are specific comments to enhance the manuscript:

-          Introduction: The introduction section is too brief. Please include a couple of sentences describing the applications of composite insulators and the current challenges associated with damage identification. Additionally, consider adding a paragraph at the end of this section that illustrates the specific gap in knowledge that this paper aims to address.

-          Methodology: It is unclear whether the method relies on vibration or elastic waves, as both terms are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript. Please clarify what types of waves were excited during the experiments. Additionally, provide information on the time of arrival and wave speed of the propagating waves.

-      Experimental Setup: The description of the experimental setup is insufficient. This section should be rewritten to include actual photographs of the setup. Furthermore, please provide detailed specifications for the sensors and the hammer used in the experiments, along with the material properties of the composite insulator.

The manuscript does not specify the locations of the voids along the length of the insulator. How do the waveforms differ based on the location of damage? A discussion of this variance is essential for understanding the impact of defect location on the results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing may be required. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Towards the vibration-based diagnostics of non-ceramic insulators: characterization of signals” proposed by Dániel Balogh, Richárd Cselkó and Gergely Márk Csányi deals with an experimental method for testing composite insulators based on modal testing. The proposed approach was developed based on investigations of propagation, signal shape, and distortion of excited mechanical waves under the influence of defects. The goal of this study is clearly defined. The introduction contains suitable information to sustain necessity and opportunity of this research. The analyses were strictly based on experimental techniques and investigations. The paper contains a logical presentation of methods, mathematical basics, analysis setup, results and discussions. It has to be noted that the results were comparatively analyzed and discussed. The conclusions are very clearly structured and presented. From this perspective, this research is obviously significant. The article could be accepted for publication as it is.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript “Towards the vibration-based diagnostics of non-ceramic insulators: characterization of signals“

written by Dániel Balogh, Richárd Cselkó and Gergely Márk Csányi

 The abstract of the manuscript is written quite well, the research idea and the features of the applied method are briefly reviewed.

However, the introduction is based on only 11 sources, which is insufficient for this article. The literature review should be expanded with additional sources, and the total number of references should be around 25–35. The introduction should also emphasize the advantages of the applied method and include more works that have been conducted in this field.

In the second section, the content should be divided into subsections to separately address the materials used and the methods applied in the research. Moreover, the method should be described in greater detail in this section, as part of the method (such as formula (1) and the use of Matlab) is currently introduced at the beginning of the third section, where it should not be.

 There are also questions regarding the reliability of the research results. It is necessary to present a statistical analysis of the measurement results to substantiate their reliability. How many measurements were performed? Were random insulator defects examined? If so, what were the findings?

In the fourth section, it would be helpful to compare the research results with those obtained by other authors to provide a broader analysis and assess the advantages of the method.

The conclusions mention cost-effective tools, but no economic analysis is provided in the manuscript. This aspect should either be added or modified accordingly.

This manuscript fits in the field of an international journal Vibration. Therefore, this manuscript is recommend for publication in MDPI journal Vibration with the suggested major corrections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A major comment about the study methodology has not been addressed. The method used in this work is confusing and poorly presented. 

- Essential details about the experimental setup such as equipment specs, properties of the sample, etc. Also, Figure 4 presents photos with several components that are not clear on how they are involved in the study. 

- The big difference between measured and theoretical propagation velocity was not justified. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English may be required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considered the reviewer's comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors have considered the reviewer's comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer has no further commentes. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edits may be required.