Stress Analysis for Cylinder Made of FGM and Subjected to Thermo-Mechanical Loadings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an analytical solution, in terms of stresses, of FGM pressure vessel subjected to both thermal and mechanical loadings. Additionally, a FE analysis is conducted to compare with the analytical results. This paper requires deeply revisions on both the content and the format.
*The scientific English of the paper has to be greatly improved. There are several grammatical errors and spelling mistakes within the paper. The content of the paper could be significantly improved if it is revised by a proofreader with good written English skills. Hereafter some examples:
- Line 17: “…a finite element analysis has been 18 analyzed…” avoid duplicating words (“analysis” and “analyzed”)
- Line 26: replace “are been selected” by “have been selected”.
- Line 138: “varying according”
*In Introduction section, the literature review on the present topic is well supplied. However, the authors must explain the novelty of their works with respect to the stat-of-the-art.
*The authors must explain how the FGM material has been simulated on ANSYS. All details should be provided. The finite element results seem to be far from the analytical solutions (more than 50%. How the authors explain these gaps.
*In section 2.1.4, the schematic view of the cylinder must be added (geometry, dimensions, boundary conditions, loading, etc.).
*Some reference sources are not show (errors !). lines 176, 191, 206, 248
*lines 18, 19 : replace “ANYSIS” by “ANSYS”
Author Response
First Reviewer #1 Comments:
1- Based on the advice received:" This paper requires deeply revisions on both the content and the format."
Author Response:
Thank you very much for valuing and recommending our work to be considered for publication in the honorable Journal of Metals after major modifications. The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow.
Reviewer #1 Comment:
2- The scientific English of the paper has to be greatly improved. There are several grammatical errors and spelling mistakes within the paper. The content of the paper could be significantly improved if it is revised by a proofreader with good written English skills.
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow. Especially lines 17, 26 and 151. The whole manuscript has been English proofed, as changes marked in yellow.
Reviewer #1 Comment:
3- In Introduction section, the literature review on the present topic is well supplied. However, the authors must explain the novelty of their works with respect to the stat-of-the-art.
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged. The manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow (line 109-119). Whereas, the literature survey is lacking the exponential higher order term analysis of cylindrical FGM under both mechanical and thermal conditions and it's comparable to FE, which is the novelty of this work.
Reviewer #1 Comment:
4- The authors must explain how the FGM material has been simulated on ANSYS. All details should be provided. The finite element results seem to be far from the analytical solutions (more than 50%. How the authors explain these gaps.
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, the manuscript was modified accordingly and line 298 was added. In addition, the simulated of the FGM on ANSYS had illustrated from line 281 to line 301. Moreover, The error between the FE and the analytical is 12 % as explained in Figure 7 and Figure 8. As the limitation of analysis done by the FEM due to numerical accuracy of the software, this is explained explicitly in line 303-311 page 11
Reviewer #1 Comment:
5- In section 2.1.4, the schematic view of the cylinder must be added (geometry, dimensions, boundary conditions, loading, etc.).
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged. The manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow (in lines: 229-234). Moreover figure 1 was added to the new manuscript.
Reviewer #1 Comment:
6- Some reference sources are not show (errors !). lines 176, 191, 206, 248
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, the manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow. Equation 8 was corrected in the manuscript (especially in lines 195, 210, 222 and 269).
Reviewer #1 Comment:
7- lines 18, 19 : replace “ANYSIS” by “ANSYS”
Author Response:
the manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow (in lines 17 and 19 ).
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript, a stress analytical solution for cylinders made of a functionally graded material subjected to thermo-mechanical loadings is addressed.
Some comments are listed as follows.
1. The topic falls in the journal scope.
2. The treatment appears to be successful.
3. The manuscript is well organized, with explicative diagrams and the main points are evidenced.
Moreover:
1. Abstract and Conclusion should be better organized.
2. The aim and novelty of the paper must be better pointed out.
3. The references on functionally graded materials should be improved. Since FGM are often used at the nanoscale, you must discuss the following articles in your paper: On thermodynamic functions in thermoelasticity without energy dissipation, European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, Volume 46, 2014, Pages 84-95; On functionally graded Timoshenko nonisothermal nanobeams, Composite Structures, 135, 2016, Pages 286-296; Stress-driven modeling of nonlocal thermoelastic behavior of nanobeams, International Journal of Engineering Science, 126, 2018, pp. 53-67; A gradient elasticity model of Bernoulli-Euler nanobeams in non-isothermal environments, European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, 55, 2016, pp. 243-255; Nonlocal nonlinear analysis of functionally graded plates using third-order shear deformation theory, International Journal of Engineering Science, 125, 2018, pagg. 1-22
4. English should be revised (such as “Some researchers have investigated the exponential law index of FGM is a useful parameter”) and typos (such as “& (Error! Reference source not found.)” must be checked.
Author Response
Second: Reviewer #2 Comments:
Reviewer # 2 Comment:
1- Abstract and Conclusion should be better organized.
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, the manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow. Both Abstract or conclusion have been modified.
Reviewer # 2 Comment:
2- The aim and novelty of the paper must be better pointed out.
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged. The manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow (line 109-119). Whereas, the literature survey is lacking the exponential higher order term analysis of cylindrical FGM under both mechanical and thermal conditions and it's comparable to FE, which is the novelty of this work.
Reviewer # 2 Comment:
3- The references on functionally graded materials should be improved. Since FGM are often used at the nanoscale, you must discuss the following articles in your paper: On thermodynamic functions in thermoelasticity without energy dissipation, European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, Volume 46, 2014, Pages 84-95; On functionally graded Timoshenko nonisothermal nanobeams, Composite Structures, 135, 2016, Pages 286-296; Stress-driven modeling of nonlocal thermoelastic behavior of nanobeams, International Journal of Engineering Science, 126, 2018, pp. 53-67; A gradient elasticity model of Bernoulli-Euler nanobeams in non-isothermal environments, European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids, 55, 2016, pp. 243-255; Nonlocal nonlinear analysis of functionally graded plates using third-order shear deformation theory, International Journal of Engineering Science, 125, 2018, pagg. 1-22
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly. Many new references have been added to the new manuscript.
Reviewer # 2 Comment:
4- English should be revised (such as “Some researchers have investigated the exponential law index of FGM is a useful parameter”) and typos (such as “& (Error! Reference source not found.)” must be checked.
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, and the manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow. Equation 8 was corrected in the manuscript (especially in lines 195, 210, 222 and 269). The whole manuscript has been English proofed, as changes marked in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is focused on the stress analysis of cylinders made of FGMs, subjected to thermos-mechanical loads. A numerical analysis is carried out to this aim. The following suggestions and comments should be taken into account:
1. In page 5 (lines 176 and 191), some references are missing. The same aspect should be checked throughout the whole paper, since similar mistakes have to be corrected.
2. The literature review concerning FGM structures and cylinders is extremely poor and cannot be adequate to introduce such a wide topic. Many relevant contributions, in fact, should be added to the reference list and mentioned in the paper.
3. The aim of the paper is clear, even if some passages are not well-described. On the other hand, according to the reviewer’s opinion, the novelty of the paper is difficult to understand, since many recent papers and researches can be found in the literature concerning the same topic. The authors should emphasize more the elements of innovation by highlighting the differences with previous results and approaches. In addition, it seems that the present topic is a borderline topic as far as the main aims of the journal are concerned.
Author Response
Third: Reviewer #3 Comments:
Reviewer # 3 Comment:
1- In page 5 (lines 176 and 191), some references are missing. The same aspect should be checked throughout the whole paper, since similar mistakes have to be corrected.
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, the manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow. Equation 8 was corrected in the manuscript (especially in lines 195, 210, 222 and 269).
Reviewer # 3 Comment:
2- The literature review concerning FGM structures and cylinders is extremely poor and cannot be adequate to introduce such a wide topic. Many relevant contributions, in fact, should be added to the reference list and mentioned in the paper.
Author Response:
The reviewer’s comment was acknowledged. The manuscript has been modified accordingly as marked in yellow (line 109-119).
Reviewer # 3 Comment:
3- The aim of the paper is clear, even if some passages are not well-described. On the other hand, according to the reviewer’s opinion, the novelty of the paper is difficult to understand, since many recent papers and researches can be found in the literature concerning the same topic. The authors should emphasize more the elements of innovation by highlighting the differences with previous results and approaches. In addition, it seems that the present topic is a borderline topic as far as the main aims of the journal are concerned.
Author Response:
The Reviewer’s comment was acknowledged, the manuscript was modified accordingly as marked in yellow (lines 129-131). Whereas, the literature survey is lacking the exponential higher order term analysis of cylindrical FGM under both mechanical and thermal conditions and it's comparable to FE, which is the novelty of this work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is now suitable for publication in Metals.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors provide adequate comments and details to answer the questions raised by the reviewers. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the current form.
