Effect of Notch Structure and Notch Bottom Diameter on the Tensile Load of a Certain GH4169 Notch Bolt for a Device for Longitudinal Separation of Fairing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed paper concerns a simplistic study of the mechanical behavior of a notched bolt. In its present form, the paper does not meet the standards of a scientific publication.
Very little information is given on the realization of the numerical model, which is based on a pseudo-elastic quasi-static behavior law for an application that should at least be dynamic elastoplastic.
The main sources of non satisfaction of the scientific criteria concern the flow law of the material which is not specified (only a value of elastic limit is given), but this material presents an elastoplastic flow, depending on the strain rate and the temperature.
How can the authors have a separation of the material since no damage criteria is given. It seems that the elements that have reached the yield point have simply been removed from the visualization in Figure 8, which is not acceptable.
Since the material has a near perfect elasto-plastic behavior as shown in Figure 2, it is normal to have experimental/numerical forces in agreement as shown in Tables 3 and 4, but this does not constitute proof of the validity of the numerical model.
The experimental unnotched specimens are missing from Figure 16, as well as the results of these numerical tests in Figure 8? Is this intentional or does it hide a problem? Where is the fracture located on the experimental and numerical tests, I have doubts that it is in the middle of the restricted zone, and the fact that the value is lower than the value with notch is contrary to the very principles of fracture mechanics.
No information is given about the numerical model, is it an implicit or explicit model? No information concerning a study of the convergence of the model, is the mesh size sufficient?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful to you for dealing with our manuscript, and especially for the instructive comments. We have read the comments carefully and thought them over, then revised the manuscript accordingly. The corresponding revision has retained the change trace. In response to your questions and suggestions, we have answered and modified. Please see the attachment.
Best wishes
Xiaoliang Wang
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Read my comments and resubmit your paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are very grateful to you for dealing with our manuscript, and especially for the instructive comments. We have read the comments carefully and thought them over, then revised the manuscript accordingly. The corresponding revision has retained the change trace. In response to your questions and suggestions, we have answered and modified. Please see the attachment.
Best wishes
Xiaoliang Wang
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have generally answered the questions raised during the first review.
Even if the contribution is not of high scientific quality, the article can still be published in the journal Metals.
Reviewer 2 Report
I expected a more detailed response to my Question 1 (c) and 2 (c). However, it is my opinion that this paper deserves to be published.
