Simplified Elastoplastic Fatigue Correction Factor Analysis Approach Based on Minimum Conservative Margin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the article is interesting. In addition, very good work has been done, which includes a lot of experimental results. I believe that this article has the potential to be published in this Journal, but the authors should pay attention to the following points and edit the article.

1- Related to the Introduction, literature review should improve using more papers published recently (it is better to use paper published after 2018).

2- Related to Table 1, It is necessary to refer to an appropriate reference. 

3- The authors should explain how the parameters of Chaboche model calculated? 

4- The language should be checked carefully, for example, on page 3 line 92, " parameter of chabochi model parameters".

5- It is strongly suggested to add extra title ""Finite element simulation", and describe it in more details. 

6- The experimental works have been done in this research, so, it is better to explain the experiment details such as frequency, etc.

7- In the test, the load is in the form of a sine wave? If yes, Figure 5 should be corrected.

8- it is necessary to refer tp an appropriate reference for each equation. 

9- It is strongly suggested to add Nomenclature. 

10- The number of reference is not enough for the scientific paper and it seems that the literature review not completely done. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript studied elastoplastic fatigue correction factor analysis. I recommend the paper for publication after major improvements. The paper reports an interesting and very useful work, well structured in the manuscript, but the manuscript has some weaknesses. Mentioned below aspects must be taken into consideration during the revision:

Nomenclature:

(1) I suggest adding "Nomenclature" section (with units and abbreviations) in the manuscript.

Introduction:

(2) More discussion about the fatigue assessment should be added. Especially connected with modelling techniques about the equivalent stress intensity factor range, residual stresses or operating stresses etc.

(3) Literature analysis should be expanded. A lot of works dealing with this issue have been published (with an emphasis on the practical side), especially in Metals journal.

Materials and Methods (this section should be included):

(4) What is the chemical composition of TA16? It could be taken from literature or determined by the authors for the tested material.

(5) Please provide information source about mechanical parameters from literature (if any);

(6) Morphology and metrology of the surface - is it possible to show SEM images of the fracture?

(7) The fatigue experiment equipment information should be showed in this section.

(8) How many samples were tested?

(9) It would be advisable to show the whole method algorithm in a flowchart.

Results:

(10) The main limitations and advantages of the present method must be identified and discussed in the end of this section.

Conclusion:

(11) The conclusions should be in a quantified form.

References:

(12) References section should be extended. I propose to add a few entries in the Introduction section regarding the fatigue modelling and failure analysis.

Comparison of different one-parameter damage laws and local stress-strain approaches in multiaxial fatigue life assessment of notched components. International Journal of Fatigue 151, 106405. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJFATIGUE.2021.106405

A novel method for failure analysis based on three-dimensional analysis of fracture surfaces. Engineering Failure Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.04.032

Advances in fatigue life modeling: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.09.047

Fractal dimension for bending–torsion fatigue fracture characterisation. Measurement 184, 109910. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2021.109910

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors attempted to provide a revision manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. They also responded to all cases individually. Although not all of their answers were satisfactory, they are generally acceptable in the scoring.