Finite Element Analysis of Post-Buckling Failure in Stiffened Panels: A Comparative Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, Jakiya Sultana et al. employs finite element analysis (Ansys) to investigate the critical buckling and post-buckling collapse behavior of stiffened aluminum and titanium alloy panels under combined uniaxial compression and lateral pressure. Key findings include, high lateral pressure (e.g., 0.13 MPa) drastically reduces the ultimate collapse load of aluminum panels (up to 99.5%), while titanium panels exhibit superior stability (1.5–2.4× higher critical buckling/collapse loads) despite a 1.6× weight penalty. Square-hemispherical openings demonstrate optimal performance, minimizing buckling and collapse load losses, whereas circular openings perform worst. Titanium’s enhanced stability under high-pressure conditions highlights its potential as an alternative to aluminum in critical aerospace applications. The coupling of lateral pressure and compressive loading must be prioritized in structural design, particularly for panels with cutouts. I would like to recommend this manuscript be accepted for publication in machines after addressing the following comments:
- While numerical results align with experiments (5.9% error for buckling), the sources of discrepancies (e.g., mesh dependency, material model simplifications) are not discussed. A sensitivity analysis of modeling assumptions (e.g., geometric imperfections, boundary conditions) is recommended to strengthen reliability.
- The superiority of square-hemispherical openings lacks mechanistic explanation. It is suggested that stress nephogram or strain energy analysis be used to visually demonstrate the difference in failure modes of different opening shapes.
- Although the performance of titanium alloy is superior, the cost is higher. It is recommended to supplement cost-benefit analysis (e.g., life-cycle cost) to support its feasibility as a substitute for aluminum in practical engineering.
- Does the lateral pressure range (0.013-0.13 MPa) in the study cover typical aviation structural loads? It is suggested to discuss the practical significance of pressure threshold in combination with specific application scenarios (such as vehicle cabin pressure).
- The paper emphasizes the importance of precision manufacturing, but does not quantify the impact of manufacturing defects (such as residual stresses, geometric deviations) on the results. It is recommended to add numerical simulation cases of manufacturing defects to assess their sensitivity to critical loads.
- Current research primarily focuses on static loads; however, dynamic loads, such as vibration and shock, are likely to be encountered in real-world structural applications. Subsequent studies are recommended to explore the buckling behavior under dynamic loads and compare the static and dynamic results.
- The format needs to be carefully checked. The author's superscript is 1, and the number for the author's affiliation is 2.
No.
Author Response
To
Editor in Chief,
Title: Finite element analysis of post-buckling failure in stiffened panels: A comparative approach.
Journal: Machines
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled "Finite Element Analysis of Post-Buckling Failure in Stiffened Panels: A Comparative Approach" to Machines.
We also extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly to reflect their recommendations.
We apologize for the delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript and respectfully request your kind understanding regarding this extension. The delay was necessary to ensure that all aspects of the reviewers' feedback were thoroughly considered and properly implemented.
Additionally, we have included a newly proposed section titled Future Research Scope, which outlines potential directions for continued exploration in this area. We believe this addition enhances the overall contribution and relevance of the study.
We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the journal and its readership. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration, and we look forward to your response.
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Gyula Varga, PhD
Associate Professor
Institute of Manufacturing Science
University of Miskolc
Egyetemvaros
H-3515, Miskolc
Hungary
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Validation is made only for one case of geometry of panel - there is no information about value of pressure (Figure 2).
2) In Figure 3a, there is lack of overall dimensions.
3) In Figure 1, the experimental data from literature are compared with FEM results. There is no information about validated numerical model. This model should correspond to investigated model in manuscript.
4) The validation of numerical model or models (under pressure) should be considered.
5) In introduction, literature position [31] should be described.
6) In Figure 4a, where is the point 'B' and 'C'?
7) What is the characteristics form tensile test for both types of material and what is the characteristics used in FE model ? There is lack of figure with tensile diagrams.
Author Response
To
Editor in Chief,
Title: Finite element analysis of post-buckling failure in stiffened panels: A comparative approach.
Journal: Machines
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled "Finite Element Analysis of Post-Buckling Failure in Stiffened Panels: A Comparative Approach" to Machines.
We also extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly to reflect their recommendations.
We apologize for the delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript and respectfully request your kind understanding regarding this extension. The delay was necessary to ensure that all aspects of the reviewers' feedback were thoroughly considered and properly implemented.
Additionally, we have included a newly proposed section titled Future Research Scope, which outlines potential directions for continued exploration in this area. We believe this addition enhances the overall contribution and relevance of the study.
We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the journal and its readership. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration, and we look forward to your response.
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Gyula Varga, PhD
Associate Professor
Institute of Manufacturing Science
University of Miskolc
Egyetemvaros
H-3515, Miskolc
Hungary
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPresented problem is practically and engineering valuable. However, in my opinion, the form of presentation needs to underline the scientific elements. The attention to the FEM method of analysis in the introduction point of manuscript as the summary of the literature review is not the special achievements and an element that indicates a scientific direction of investigations. The new, original scientific elements should be pointed.
Additional elements to improve are as follows:
- The point 3 should be before the point 2, where the results of FEM analysis are presented,
- The FEM accuracy analysis should be presented,
- The scheme of the form of panel loading should be shown,
- The explanation to the Fig. 4 should be more clear presented,
- The criterion of the loss of panel stability should be presented to find the critical points on the presented curves,
- The analysis of the stress state should be presented, specially in post-buckling area of loading,
- The conclusion should be completed by the scientific, new elements which are underlined in the paper and the further investigations.
Author Response
To
Editor in Chief,
Title: Finite element analysis of post-buckling failure in stiffened panels: A comparative approach.
Journal: Machines
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled "Finite Element Analysis of Post-Buckling Failure in Stiffened Panels: A Comparative Approach" to Machines.
We also extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly to reflect their recommendations.
We apologize for the delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript and respectfully request your kind understanding regarding this extension. The delay was necessary to ensure that all aspects of the reviewers' feedback were thoroughly considered and properly implemented.
Additionally, we have included a newly proposed section titled Future Research Scope, which outlines potential directions for continued exploration in this area. We believe this addition enhances the overall contribution and relevance of the study.
We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the journal and its readership. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration, and we look forward to your response.
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Gyula Varga, PhD
Associate Professor
Institute of Manufacturing Science
University of Miskolc
Egyetemvaros
H-3515, Miskolc
Hungary
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn article FE-analysis and comparative approach is used to investigate the critical buckling and collapse load of four variations of aluminium stiffened panel.
The article is interesting, and the topic is relevant. Here are a few things to consider for the next versions of the article:
In general: The structure of the article could be clearer. I would recommend using the IMRaD structure and following it in the main headings. There are many good guides online for applying the IMRaD structure.
Introduction: The Introduction section has appropriately covered the research done in the field. However, I would clarify the 'Knowledge Gap' part at the end of the section. What does 'finite element code' mean, is it a translation error (lines 102 and 104)?
Materials and Methods: The section consists of the paragraphs 'Numerical validations with experiments' and 'Finite element modeling'. Currently, this part of the article is somewhat confusing and incomplete. I would suggest clarifying this section by presenting the materials and their significant properties for the research, introducing the geometry of the test specimens, describing the methods of the experimental part, and explaining the methods of the computational part. Based on the presented information, a competent reader should be able to replicate the experiments. Present the structural images so that different structures are shown in the same way and all essential details are visible (or clarified in the text). Currently, the images in Fig 3 are not clear enough. The boundary conditions of the FEM models should also be described more clearly.
Explain “square-hemispherical geometry” is it stadium/pill shape/discorectangle or something else?
Results and discussion: The results are presented fairly clearly, but the discussion section is completely missing. I recommend including a separate Discussion section.
Figure 6 – Figure number and description is missing.
Conclusions: Ok!
Author Response
To
Editor in Chief,
Title: Finite element analysis of post-buckling failure in stiffened panels: A comparative approach.
Journal: Machines
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to submit our manuscript titled "Finite Element Analysis of Post-Buckling Failure in Stiffened Panels: A Comparative Approach" to Machines.
We also extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have significantly helped us improve the quality of our work. We have carefully addressed all the comments provided by the reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly to reflect their recommendations.
We apologize for the delay in resubmitting the revised manuscript and respectfully request your kind understanding regarding this extension. The delay was necessary to ensure that all aspects of the reviewers' feedback were thoroughly considered and properly implemented.
Additionally, we have included a newly proposed section titled Future Research Scope, which outlines potential directions for continued exploration in this area. We believe this addition enhances the overall contribution and relevance of the study.
We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the journal and its readership. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration, and we look forward to your response.
Corresponding Author:
Dr. Gyula Varga, PhD
Associate Professor
Institute of Manufacturing Science
University of Miskolc
Egyetemvaros
H-3515, Miskolc
Hungary
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved. I suggest to publish in present form.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter the improvemets, the article meets the required standards and is ready for publication.
