Next Article in Journal
Laser Ablation on Isostatic Graphite—A New Way to Create Exfoliated Graphite
Next Article in Special Issue
Nonlocal Free Vibration of Embedded Short-Fiber-Reinforced Nano-/Micro-Rods with Deformable Boundary Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Improved Mechanical and Corrosion Properties of Powder Metallurgy Austenitic, Ferritic, and Martensitic Stainless Steels by Liquid Phase Sintering
Previous Article in Special Issue
Can a Black-Box AI Replace Costly DMA Testing?—A Case Study on Prediction and Optimization of Dynamic Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

On the Numerical Modeling of Flax/PLA Bumper Beams

Materials 2022, 15(16), 5480; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165480
by Liu Jiao-Wang, José A. Loya and Carlos Santiuste *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Materials 2022, 15(16), 5480; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165480
Submission received: 14 July 2022 / Revised: 31 July 2022 / Accepted: 3 August 2022 / Published: 9 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Materials Simulation and Design)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

On the numerical modelling of flax/PLA bumper beams.

The article is well written. A few comments are given below;

The abstract could be revised with quantitative results.

There is a need to update the introduction with some latest studies.

The different numerical models could be summarized in the table along with their variables.

Figure 5b axis are not clear.

Also figure 6 is not readable.

Section 2.2 could be rearranged with subheadings for better understanding.

Figure 11, stiffness or slop is quite different, the authors must discuss this issue.

Colors are shown in the figure, how scales are not provided, its not clear meaning of different colors.

The results are not well discussed with references to the previous studies.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1). Figure 6 compares the EXP results and the FEM predictions regarding the contact-force for different impact energies. However, the curve deviation (EXP and FEM) for the 3 different cases is a little different. For 30J and 70J, the peak force matches great, but not for the 50J case. Can the author explain it?

2). In Figure 8, the author illustrates that in the EXP, the delaminate can only occur at the impact zone of the beam, while for the simulation, the delaminate occurs at both the impact zone and the corner. Can the authors explain this more? Is it due to the boundary condition setup?

3). Some typos being found:

-- Page 1, line 41, “most popularly” should be “most popular”

-- Page 2, line 50, “in the last years” should be “in the past years”

-- Page 11, line 336, “Figure 11” is duplicated; line 351, “Figure 12” is duplicated in the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscripts can now be accepted in modified form.

Back to TopTop