Impact Testing on the Pristine and Repaired Composite Materials for Aerostructures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. In this manuscript the impact performance of pristine and repaired composites and the development of numerical models are reviewed. This review is more about the author's restatement of the results of the existing literature, and less about the author's perspectives, suggesting the author to improve.
2. The author should re-review the paper and re-check the English expression, authors are suggested to use simple sentences rather than lengthy ones.
3. In lines 45-46, "There are low, medium and high velocity impacts, with the former two being discussed in this review paper.” The author discusses not only low velocity, but also high velocity in the fully paper. So, in this sentence, “in this review paper” should be “in this section”?
4. In lines 227-230, “Li et al. [13] found that the scarf joint characteristics tested had a similar ultimate failure load and lap shear strength to the single-lap joints and had the greatest lap shear strength and strength to weight ratio out of all three joint types.” This sentence is a bit confusing and difficult to follow. Many similar sentences, suggesting the author re-check the full text again.
5. In numerical simulation, the author simply states the numerical simulation established by others and that the numerical results are in good agreement with the experimental results, which regurgitates others' conclusions. There is no statement of what models they established, no comparison of the similarities and differences between models. This is not conducive to readers' understanding and choice of numerical model. It is suggested that the author make a chart or table to make readers as plain as daylight.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The content of the article is valuable and can serve as a useful reference for related research.
Some related articles can be cited to increase content in the introduction.
Numerical Investigation on Static Bending and Free Vibration Responses of Two-Layer Variable Thickness Plates with Shear Connectors
Bending of Symmetric Sandwich FGM Beams with Shear Connectors
Finite element modeling of the bending and vibration behavior of three-layer composite plates with a crack in the core layer
The Third-Order Shear Deformation Theory for Modeling the Static Bending and Dynamic Responses of Piezoelectric Bidirectional Functionally Graded Plates
A new efficient modified first-order shear model for static bending and vibration behaviors of two-layer composite plate
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper presents a review about impact testing on the pristine and repaired composite materials for aerostructures.
The following points need to be clarified:
- The weakness and limitations of the papers reviewed are not mentioned mostly. It could be done at least for few of them.
- Only one outlook “the performance under soft impact testing” is given in the conclusion. Some more will be useful for the readers.
- Line 664 “low and medium velocities for hard-impact testing”. What are the ranges for these velocities? They should be mentioned.
- The authors could put some more details about the experiments performed (setups used) or the FE simulations (algorithms developed, modelling technique), at least for few papers.
- The following references and the references therein could be added to extend the literature review sensibly
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.02.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.01.018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.06.023
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have address all my concerns, and it can be considered for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is corrected as requested.
