Mechanical Property Characterization of Architectural Coated Woven Fabrics Subjected to Freeze–Thaw Cycles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I understand that this paper is an investigation of the changes in mechanical properties of two types of fiber composite fabrics when subjected to freeze-thaw cycles. 100 cycles of the treatment is a valuable report, and I think it is industrially valuable to report it as a paper, however, I judged that the following points are lacking.

The explanation of Figure 2 is not clear.

The unit of stress is different.

It is difficult to distinguish between the figures.

The mechanism of the decrease in tensile strength obtained in Figure 13 is not discussed enough.

Is the physical properties of the fiber unchanged by the  freeze-thaw treatment?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you first of all for valuable remarks, suggestions and for the time you dedicated to increase the manuscript’s quality. We outline in the following, every change made in response to your comments.

We hope to have addressed all your comments and look forward to receiving a positive answer.

1.The explanation of Figure 2 is not clear.

Response 1: it was added to the first paragraph of Introduction, marked by yellow.

2. 
   The unit of stress is different.

Response 2: It was checked for all figures.

3. It is difficult to distinguish between the figures.

Response 3: The figure titles were added.

4. The mechanism of the decrease in tensile strength obtained in Figure 13 is not discussed enough.

Response 4: It is added in the end of part 3.3.4, marked by yellow.

5. Is the physical properties of the fiber unchanged by the freeze-thaw treatment?

Response 5: As the tensile strength remains relatively stable under only freeze-thaw impacts, as indicated in the second column of Figure 13, the presumed mechanism of microcrack growth during freeze cycles does not occur significantly to alter the physical and mechanical properties of the fibres.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is certainly a simple (but useful, hence welcome) empirical research, apparently properly done; yet while I am into fibers (mostly for composites ; I am also into fiber spinning), occasionally I had trouble to follow descriptions and reasoning  (behind certain choices or even interpretations).   At least, the conclusions should be rewritten more clearly (consider for example the second phrase of conclusion No 1).

In addition:

(a)  The use of E secant (which is not as fundamental as e.g. the 'initial slope'- based E) should be discussed in some detail (.e.g. [why]  can we draw safe conclusions from comparisons of it in the present case? etc )

(b) FEP should be defined

Few weak spots

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you first of all for valuable remarks, suggestions and for the time you dedicated to increase the manuscript’s quality. We outline in the following, every change made in response to your comments.

We hope to have addressed all your comments and look forward to receiving a positive answer.

1. Yet while I am into fibers (mostly for composites ; I am also into fiber spinning), occasionally I had trouble to follow descriptions and reasoning (behind certain choices or even interpretations). At least, the conclusions should be rewritten more clearly (consider for example the second phrase of conclusion No 1).

Response 1: It was improved.

2. 
   The use of E secant (which is not as fundamental as e.g. the 'initial slope'- based E) should be discussed in some detail (.e.g. [why] can we draw safe conclusions from comparisons of it in the present case? etc )

Response 2: Figure 4, parts 3.2.3 and 3.3.3 were revised and marked by yellow.

3. FEP should be defined

Response 3: The full name was written in Table 1.

4. Few weak spots of english.

Response 4: It was checked again.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is worthy of being published in the journal, as it has been corrected exactly in the areas pointed out.

Reviewer 2 Report

Part of the response to issue 2 (authors' numbering) relies on a yet-unpublished document (Ref. 17) so I cannot fully evaluate it. I will trust that the rest of the answer is there though this is not the best possible response to the request.